Physiological responses to arm versus leg activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Compared with healthy older adults, people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have reduced capacity and increased symptoms during leg and arm activities. While the mechanisms underlying limitations and symptoms during leg activities have been investigated in detail, limitations and symptoms during arm activities are not well understood, and the potential differences between physiological responses of leg and arm activities have not been systematically synthesised. Determining physiological responses and symptoms of arm activities compared with physiological responses and symptoms of leg activities will help us understand the mechanisms behind the difficulties that people with COPD experience when performing physical activities, and determine how exercise training should be prescribed. Thus, the aim of this systematic review is to compare the physiological responses and symptoms during activities involving the arms relative to activities involving the legs in people diagnosed with COPD. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Potentially relevant studies will be identified from CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed databases. The Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcomes, and Study characteristics framework will be used to systematise the process of selecting and extracting data from relevant studies. Assessment of the methodological quality of the studies will be done by using the 14 most relevant components from the checklist by Downs and Black. The result will be presented with a narrative synthesis, and if appropriate with meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this study is a systematic review. It is our intention to submit the results of our review for peer-reviewed publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017074476.
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 | 0.092 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.012 |
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".