Evaluation of Limb Muscle Strength and Function in People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Muscle weakness is an observable consequence of limb muscle dysfunction in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this review is to describe clinically applicable methods of muscle strength testing and functional tests that are associated with muscle strength in people with COPD. Summary of Key Points: Several tests and devices for evaluating muscle strength have been described in COPD. Isometric quadriceps strength testing, which is associated with clinical outcomes in COPD, can be reliably tested using fixed dynamometers or strain gauges in clinical and laboratory settings. Functional tests that are correlated with muscle strength in COPD include the Stair Climb Power Test, Sit-to-Stand test, and Timed Up and Go test. These tests are easy to conduct in the clinical setting and are relevant to daily activities; however, performance depends on factors such as balance and coordination in addition to leg muscle strength. Conclusions: Muscle strength assessment should be considered an integral part of the evaluation of people with COPD. Clinicians and researchers can select from a variety of valid and reliable tests to evaluate muscle strength based on their available resources and goals of the patient.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".