Impact of pulmonary emphysema on exercise capacity and its physiological determinants in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exercise limitation is common in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We determined the impact of pulmonary emphysema on the physiological response to exercise independent of contemporary measures of COPD severity. Smokers 40–79 years old with COPD underwent computed tomography, pulmonary function tesing, and symptom-limited incremental exercise testing. COPD severity was quantified according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) by spirometry (GOLD 1–4); and symptom burden and exacerbation risk (GOLD A-D). Emphysema severity was quantified as the percent lung volume <−950 Hounsfield units. Regression models adjusted for age, gender, body size, smoking status, airflow limitation, symptom burden and exacerbation risk. Among 67 COPD subjects (age 67 ± 8 years; 75% male; GOLD 1–4: 11%, 43%, 30%, 16%), median percent emphysema was 11%, and peak power output (PPO) was 61 ± 32 W. Higher percent emphysema independently predicted lower PPO (−24 W per 10% increment in emphysema; 95%CI −41 to −7 W). Throughout exercise, higher percent emphysema predicted 1) higher minute ventilation, ventilatory equivalent for CO2, and heart rate; and 2) lower oxy-hemoglobin saturation, and end-tidal PCO2. Independent of contemporary measures of COPD severity, the extent of pulmonary emphysema predicts lower exercise capacity, ventilatory inefficiency, impaired gas-exchange and increased heart rate response to exercise.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".