Influence of Disease Severity and Exercise Limitation on Exercise Training Intensity and Load and Health Benefits From Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients With COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) fail to achieve health benefits with pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Exercise intensity and load represent stimulus for adaptation but it is unclear whether inappropriate exercise intensity and/or load are affected by severity of COPD, which may affect health benefits. The purpose was to determine whether COPD severity and/or the severity of pulmonary limitation to exercise (PLE) impacted exercising intensity or load and whether resultant intensity/load affected health outcomes derived from PR. METHODS: Patients with COPD (n = 58, age = 67 ± 7 y, forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] % predicted = 52 ± 21%) were recruited upon referral to PR. Primary health outcomes evaluated were 6-min walk distance and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Patients were stratified for disease severity using Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) staging and PLE severity by change in inspiratory capacity during exercise. Exercise intensity and load were calculated from daily exercise records. RESULTS: Participants achieved comparable training duration and load regardless of GOLD severity. Patients with more severe PLE achieved greater training duration (more severe: 546 ± 143 min., less severe: 451 ± 109 min., P = .036), and relative training load (more severe: 2200.8 ± 595.3 kcal, less severe: 1648.3 ± 597.8 kcal, P = .007). Greater overall training load was associated with greater improvements in 6-min walk distance (r = 0.24, P = .035). No significant relationships were observed between PLE, GOLD severity, training parameters, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire response. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in exercise tolerance can be explained by achieving greater training loads, demonstrating the importance of appropriate training load to maximize health outcomes in PR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".