Patients profile and pulmonary rehabilitation in interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Pulmonary rehabilitation programs in interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients is a developing area of research. Available data from trials in ILD suggest improvement in walk distance and quality of life. To our knowledge, no data exist on patients characteristics associated with better outcomes from pulmonary rehabilitation in ILD. Objective: To determine if pulmonary rehabilitation improves exercise performance and symptoms preferentially in ILD patients presenting with leg fatigue exercise limitation (LFL) profile compared to exercise desaturation limited (DL) profile. Methods: We studied a cohort of 25 ILD patients involved in an 8 weeks pulmonary rehabilitation program. We identified a group of DL patients (n=16) and a group of LFL (n=9). For each patient, CAT questionnaire, grip strength, endurance, cycling power and stairs climbed were collected pre and post program. Analysis was done using T-test 2-tails. Results: Our cohort includes 15 men and 10 women (mean age of 61.9yo±10.1). Difference between the groups was not significant for the CAT questionnaire (DL -3.2±5.5; LFL -5.2±3.2; p=0.47), grip strength (DL 7±3 kg; LFL 9±8 kg; p=0.09), change on constant work rate test (DL 81 ±257 s; LFL 98±217 s; p=0.63) or on pic ergocycle power (DL 9±1 W; LFL 5±4 W; p=0.66), stairs climbed (DL 3±2 floors; LFL 5±3 floors; p=0.15). Conclusion: Our results suggest that there is no significant difference in the outcomes after pulmonary rehabilitation based on the profile of exercise limitation in ILD patients. Pulmonary rehabilitation should be offered to all ILD patients. A larger study would be interesting to identify characteristics to tailor rehabilitation programs and optimize outcomes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".