Exercise capacity in patients with cystic fibrosis at 6 and 12 months after lung transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Lung transplantation (LT) is a therapeutic choice for patients with advanced Cystic Fibrosis (CF). After LT, respiratory function recovers but exercise capacity remains limited despite rehabilitative activity. Aim: To evaluate the persistence of the limited exercise capacity after LT and its relation with physio-pathological variables in patients with CF. Materials and methods: In 12 CF patients who underwent LT we performed an analysis of the cardiopulmonary exercise test performed 6 and 12 months after LT comparing results of maximal tests at the 2 intervals. Results: The 12 CF patients studied, aged 14 to 44 years, (none had obliterative bronchiolitis syndrome) performed regular physical activity. At both 6 and 12 months after LT, there was a low maximal work (43 vs 48% pred p>0,05) and a low O2-consumption (VO2) at the peak of the exercise (34,5 vs 35,5% pred p>0,05) and at early anaerobic threshold (24,5 vs 20% pred p>0,05). Neither the ventilatory reserve (65 vs 58% pred p>0,05) nor the heart rate (137 vs 148 bpm p>0,05) were reached at the peak of the exercise. However, the slope of the Work/VO2 (work efficiency) relation was lower than normal in all patients. Conclusions: Patients with CF after LT have a reduced maximal exercise capacity without ventilatory or cardiac limitations that persists despite the rehabilitative activity. Our findings showing a low work "efficiency" (low work/VO2 slope) suggest that the reduced exercise capacity could be attributable to muscle-related abnormality in oxygen metabolism in peripheral muscle
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".