Pathophysiological mechanisms of exertional breathlessness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breathlessness is a common and distressing symptom in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD), particularly during exercise. Effective medical management of exertional breathlessness in people living with COPD and fibrotic ILD is challenging for healthcare providers and requires an understanding of its mechanisms. Thus, in this brief review we summarize recent advances in our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms of exertional breathlessness in COPD and fibrotic ILD. RECENT FINDINGS: The collective results of recent physiological and clinical trials suggest that higher intensity ratings of exertional breathlessness in both COPD and fibrotic ILD compared to healthy control individuals is mechanistically linked to the awareness of greater neural respiratory drive (quantified using inspiratory muscle electromyography) needed to compensate for pathophysiological abnormalities in respiratory mechanics and pulmonary gas exchange efficiency. SUMMARY: Any therapeutic intervention capable of decreasing intrinsic mechanical loading of the respiratory system and/or increasing pulmonary gas exchange efficiency has the potential to decrease the prevalence and severity of activity-related breathlessness and improve related clinical and patient-reported outcomes (e.g., exercise tolerance and health-related quality of life) by decreasing neural respiratory drive in people with COPD and fibrotic ILD.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".