Exertional Oxygen Requirements During Exercise Training in Advanced Interstitial Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little is known about the oxygen requirements during physical exertion or exercise in individuals with interstitial lung disease (ILD). This study examined exertional oxygen requirements, the relationships between exertional oxygen use, exercise capacity and aerobic training parameters, and predictors of change in exertional oxygen requirements during pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). METHODS: A retrospective study of lung transplant candidates with advanced ILD who underwent at least 4 wk of outpatient PR between 2004 and 2014 was undertaken. Data were extracted at baseline, 4 wk, and 6 mo. Exertional oxygen was prescribed during PR to support continuous, moderate-intensity aerobic training. RESULTS: The study cohort (n = 375) had a median age of 61 y (55-66 y), were 57% male, and most were diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (n = 214). A variety of oxygen delivery systems were used and exertional oxygen requirements increased after 4 wk (0.5 [0.4-0.6] vs 0.5 [0.4-0.73], P < .001, n = 375) and 6 mo (0.44 [0.36-0.5] vs 0.5 [0.4-0.55], P < .001, n = 196) of PR. A higher exertional oxygen requirement was associated with lower 6-min walk distance and lower aerobic training intensity at all time points. There were no identified predictors of the change in exertional oxygen requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with advanced ILD had high exertional oxygen requirements to participate in moderate-intensity aerobic training, which increased over time. Exertional oxygen needs may affect exercise prescription and response during PR in ILD patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".