MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inspiratory muscle training reduces diaphragm activation and dyspnea during exercise in COPD

2018· article· en· W2791379775 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
FundersQueen's UniversityFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsMedicineCOPDCardiologyDiaphragm (acoustics)Endurance trainingInternal medicineVentilation (architecture)Physical therapyRespiratory systemLung volumesWork of breathingMuscle fatigueElectromyographyLungPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), those with the lowest maximal inspiratory pressures experience greater breathing discomfort (dyspnea) during exercise. In such individuals, inspiratory muscle training (IMT) may be associated with improvement of dyspnea, but the mechanisms for this are poorly understood. Therefore, we aimed to identify physiological mechanisms of improvement in dyspnea and exercise endurance following inspiratory muscle training (IMT) in patients with COPD and low maximal inspiratory pressure (Pi max ). The effects of 8 wk of controlled IMT on respiratory muscle function, dyspnea, respiratory mechanics, and diaphragm electromyography (EMGdi) during constant work rate cycle exercise were evaluated in patients with activity-related dyspnea (baseline dyspnea index <9). Subjects were randomized to either IMT or a sham training control group ( n = 10 each). Twenty subjects (FEV 1 = 47 ± 19% predicted; Pi max = −59 ± 14 cmH 2 O; cycle ergometer peak work rate = 47 ± 21% predicted) completed the study; groups had comparable baseline lung function, respiratory muscle strength, activity-related dyspnea, and exercise capacity. IMT, compared with control, was associated with greater increases in inspiratory muscle strength and endurance, with attendant improvements in exertional dyspnea and exercise endurance time (all P < 0.05). After IMT, EMGdi expressed relative to its maximum (EMGdi/EMGdi max ) decreased ( P < 0.05) with no significant change in ventilation, tidal inspiratory pressures, breathing pattern, or operating lung volumes during exercise. In conclusion, IMT improved inspiratory muscle strength and endurance in mechanically compromised patients with COPD and low Pi max . The attendant reduction in EMGdi/EMGdi max helped explain the decrease in perceived respiratory discomfort despite sustained high ventilation and intrinsic mechanical loading over a longer exercise duration. NEW & NOTEWORTHY In patients with COPD and low maximal inspiratory pressures, inspiratory muscle training (IMT) may be associated with improvement of dyspnea, but the mechanisms for this are poorly understood. This study showed that 8 wk of home-based, partially supervised IMT improved respiratory muscle strength and endurance, dyspnea, and exercise endurance. Dyspnea relief occurred in conjunction with a reduced activation of the diaphragm relative to maximum in the absence of significant changes in ventilation, breathing pattern, and operating lung volumes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it