Effects of low load/high-repetition resistance training in patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effects of 8 weeks of low load/high-repetitive resistance training (LLHR) of 6 upper and lower limbs exercises in 21 patients with COPD (FEV1 38% predicted). Outcome measurements were shoulder flexion (SF) and knee extension (KE) strength and endurance, distance walked on the 6-minute walk test (6MWD), arm function measured with the unsupported upper extremity exercise test (UULEX) and impact of COPD on daily life using the COPD assessment test (CAT). In addition, dyspnea and fatigue ratings from the 6 LLHR exercises were collected during two identical exercise sessions with matched workloads that were performed before and after the intervention period. Quadriceps muscle fatigue was also assessed by measuring the decline of both Isometric KE maximal voluntary contraction (ΔMVC) and potentiated twitch force (ΔTW) measured before and after these two sessions. Table. Effects of 8 weeks of LLHR on study outcomes Eight weeks of LLHR improved limb muscle function, functional performance and CAT score. In addition, exertional symptoms and amount of quadriceps contractile fatigue were reduced when comparing to an identical exercise session with matched workloads performed before and after the intervention period
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".