Role of Muscle Strength in Balance Assessment and Treatment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this review is to examine the role of muscle strength in the assessment and management of balance problems among individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Our specific aims are to (1) synthesize the literature on the role of muscle strength in balance control among older adults; (2) provide an overview of what is known about these relationships in people with COPD; and (3) describe clinical applications of assessing and training muscle strength in the context of improving balance among individuals with COPD. Summary of Key Points: Muscle strength is a key contributor to balance in both healthy populations and in people with COPD. Although impairments in skeletal muscle have been well studied in people with COPD, the contributions of this dysfunction to the observed balance deficits in COPD has not been as well studied to date. Furthermore, current research only supports associations between muscle strength and balance performance, and we are unable to determine cause and effect. Future research should address the impact of potential deficits in muscle power and endurance on postural control and fall risk in people with COPD. Recommendations: Comprehensive assessment of balance in people with COPD should include an assessment of muscle strength but also cannot ignore the many other subsystems underlying balance. When targeting muscle strength as part of a balance training program, specific considerations should be given to functional lower-body and core exercises that challenge different balance systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".