Could scooting be a useful option for aerobic exercise in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Many patients with COPD are ventilatory limited and unable to tolerate effective levels of aerobic training. A scooter could be an enticing training modality if muscle activity is partitioned and distal leg muscle activity is emphasized. The aim of this study was to determine whether scooting might emphasize leg heaviness (desired muscle burden), relative to the breathing heaviness, when compared with walking. Methods Participants completed two endurance tests, walking and scooting. The intensity for each targeted similar tolerable exercise times (t limit ) simulating comparable training session exposure. Participants scored (Borg 0-10 ) leg and breathing heaviness throughout each test and the slope calculated. Electromyography was used to quantify leg muscle activity. Results 15 participants with COPD (mean[SD]: age = 64[11]y; FEV 1 = 52[17]%predicted; FEV 1 /FVC = 50[10]%) completed the study. Successful matching of intensity between modalities was demonstrated by similar t limit (difference [95%CI] = -0.3[-2.8 to 2.1]min). Scooting resulted in more (60[24 to 95]%) activity of the gastrocnemius in the propulsion and less (−82[-91 to −72]%) in the support leg. Rectus femoris activity was reduced (−68[-95 to −41]%) and increased (117[49 to 184]%) in the propulsion and support leg, respectively. There was no significant difference (0.1[-0.1 to 0.2]) in the relationship between breathing and leg heaviness when scooting was compared to walking. Conclusions Scooting is associated with increased activity of the distal muscles of propulsion of the scooting leg. However, this is offset by the increased activity of the support leg as it resists the rotational force of propulsion, such that the relationship between breathing and leg heaviness is not altered.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".