Balance Measures Over 12 Months in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe balance for 12 mo in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Individuals with COPD completed the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BEST), and the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale before pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), post-PR and at 3, 6, and 12 mo. If an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) occurred, balance measures were repeated after 7 d and 1 mo. Descriptive data are displayed for balance measures at 5 time-points (pre-PR, post-PR, 3 mo, 6 mo, and 12 mo) in those without exacerbations. The outcome score at 7 d and 1 mo post-AECOPD was compared with the assessment closest to the AECOPD. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients were recruited and 32 patients (17 male; mean age ± standard deviation = 68.5 ± 9.9 yr; FEV1 % predicted =38 ± 15%) completed balance measures post-PR. Seventeen, 11, and 6 patients, who did not exacerbate, completed balance measures at 3, 6, and 12 mo, respectively, with no overall change in balance measures over time. Of 32 patients, 15 experienced an AECOPD and of these, 8 and 11 completed measures at 7 d and 1 mo, respectively. Balance declined from baseline to 7 d (BBS, P = .010; BEST, P = .002) and to 1 mo post-AECOPD (BBS, P = .035). Balance recovered from 7 d to 1 mo post-AECOPD but did not return to baseline levels (BBS, P = .045; BEST, P = .006). There were no changes in balance confidence post-AECOPD. CONCLUSIONS: Balance remained stable over 12 mo after completion of PR in those who remained exacerbation-free. The impact of an AECOPD on measures of balance persisted after 1 mo.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".