Cerebrovascular function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the impact of exercise training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined cerebral blood flow (CBF) and its regulation before and after a short-term periodized aerobic exercise training intervention in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Twenty-eight patients with COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity < 0.7 and −1·mmHg−1, P = 0.02). After aerobic training, absolute peak O2 consumption increased in both groups, with a greater improvement in control subjects (1.7 ± 0.4 vs. 4.1 ± 0.2 ml·kg−1·min−1, respectively, P = 0.001). Despite these improvements in peak O2 consumption, there were no significant alterations in CBF or any measures of cerebrovascular function after exercise training in either group. In conclusion, patients with COPD have a blunted cerebrovascular response to hypocapnia, and 8 wk of aerobic exercise training did not alter cerebrovascular function despite significant improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness. NEW & NOTEWORTHY No study to date has investigated whether exercise training can alter resting cerebral blood flow (CBF) regulation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study is the first to assess CBF regulation at rest, before, and after aerobic exercise training in patients with COPD and healthy control subjects. This study demonstrated that while exercise training improved aerobic fitness, it had little effect on CBF regulation in patients with COPD or control subjects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".