Randomised controlled trial of adjunctive inspiratory muscle training for patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate whether adjunctive inspiratory muscle training (IMT) can enhance the well-established benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with COPD. METHODS: O) were randomised into an intervention group (IMT+PR; n=110) or a control group (Sham-IMT+PR; n=109) in this double-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial between February 2012 and October 2016 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01397396). Improvement in 6 min walking distance (6MWD) was a priori defined as the primary outcome. Prespecified secondary outcomes included respiratory muscle function and endurance cycling time. FINDINGS: No significant differences between the intervention group (n=89) and the control group (n=85) in improvements in 6MWD were observed (0.3 m, 95% CI -13 to 14, p=0.967). Patients who completed assessments in the intervention group achieved larger gains in inspiratory muscle strength (effect size: 1.07, p<0.001) and endurance (effect size: 0.79, p<0.001) than patients in the control group. 75 s additional improvement in endurance cycling time (95% CI 1 to 149, p=0.048) and significant reductions in Borg dyspnoea score at isotime during the cycling test (95% CI -1.5 to -0.01, p=0.049) were observed in the intervention group. INTERPRETATION: Improvements in respiratory muscle function after adjunctive IMT did not translate into additional improvements in 6MWD (primary outcome). Additional gains in endurance time and reductions in symptoms of dyspnoea were observed during an endurance cycling test (secondary outcome) TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01397396; Results.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".