A Simplified Approach to Select Exercise Endurance Intensity for Interventional Studies in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time to exercise limitation (Tlim) in response to constant work rate (CWR) is sensitive to interventions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This is particularly true when the pre-intervention test lasts between 3 and 8 min (Tlim3′–8′). There is, however, no simple method to select a work rate which is consistently associated with Tlim3′–8′ across the spectrum of COPD severity.We assessed 59 GOLD stages II–IV patients who initially cycled to Tlim at 75% peak. In case of short (<3 min, low-endurance) or long (>8 min, high-endurance) tests, patients exercised after 60 min at 50% or 90%, respectively (CWR50%⇐75%⇒90%).Critical mechanical constraints and limiting dyspnea at 75% were reached within the desired timeframe in 27 “mid-endurance” patients (46%). Increasing work rate intensity to 90% hastened the mechanical-ventilatory responses leading to Tlim3′–8′ in 23/26 (88%) “high-endurance” patients; conversely, decreasing exercise intensity to 50% slowed those responses leading to Tlim3′–8′ in 5/6 (83%) “high-endurance” patients. Repeating the tests at higher (60%) or lower (80%) intensities fail to consistently produce Tlim3′–8′ in “low-” and “high-endurance”, respectively (p > 0.05). Compared to a fixed work rate at 75%, CWR50%⇐75%⇒90% significantly decreased Tlim's coefficient of variation; consequently, the required N to detect 100 s or 33% improvement in Tlim decreased from 82 to 26 and 41 to 14, respectively.This simplified approach to individualized work rate adjustment (CWR50%⇐75%⇒90%) might allow greater sensitivity in evaluating interventional efficacy in improving respiratory mechanics and exercise tolerance while simultaneously reducing sample size requirements in patients with COPD.
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 | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".