Static hyperinflation is associated with ventilatory limitation and exercise tolerance in adult cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lung hyperinflation is a potential mechanism limiting exercise tolerance. However, available data on the impact of static hyperinflation on exercise performance in adult cystic fibrosis are lacking. Furthermore, the relative contribution of both static and dynamic hyperinflation to exercise performance is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of static hyperinflation on exercise tolerance and lung dynamics in adult cystic fibrosis. METHODS: Clinical data of 107 adult patients with cystic fibrosis, including pulmonary function, lung volumes and cardiopulmonary exercise from the Toronto Cystic Fibrosis database, were collected and analyzed. Patients were classified as having static hyperinflation with a residual volume to total lung capacity (RV/TLC) ratio of 30% or greater. RESULTS: Patients with static hyperinflation demonstrated a significant reduction in exercise performance [peak oxygen uptake (% predicted) 70 ± 17 vs 80 ± 17; P = .006] and were more likely to experience ventilatory limitation when exercising (Fisher's exact test P < .001). Correlation analysis showed significant relationships between measures of static hyperinflation [RV/TLC ratio (%)] and exercise performance [peak oxygen uptake (% predicted); r = -.38, P < .001] and dynamic hyperinflation (r = -.35, P < .001). Multiple linear regression showed that the contribution of static hyperinflation to exercise performance [peak oxygen uptake (% predicted)] was greater than that of airway obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second). CONCLUSION: Clinicians working with this patient group in a pulmonary rehabilitation or health care setting may wish to consider using measures of static hyperinflation as end points to determine program or treatment efficacy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".