Improving Provider Experience in Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the acute effects of inspiratory pressure support (IPS) of 5 cmH~2~O (IPS~5~) and 10 cmH~2~O (IPS~10~) on exercise endurance. Forty-five patients with COPD (mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV~1~)=39±14% pred) performed three constant-load endurance tests on a cycle ergometer at 75% of maximal workload. One test was without IPS, one test with IPS~5~, and one with IPS~10~. No statistically significant difference was found in exercise endurance between tests without IPS and IPS~5~ (4.2±2.6 *versus* 4.4±2.9 min). In contrast, IPS~10~ resulted in a statistically significant increase in endurance compared with exercise without IPS (6.3±6.7 *versus* 4.2±2.6 min), as well as compared with exercise with IPS~5~ (6.3±6.7 *versus* 4.4±2.9 min). A wide scatter in individual responses to IPS was found, ranging from a deterioration of 1.6 min (−36%) to an improvement of 16.3 min (+445%). In only 15 patients, the increase in endurance exceeded the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval. Stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that maximal inspiratory pressure was the most important determinant of the increase in exercise endurance due to the application of IPS~10~. It was concluded that in contrast to inspiratory pressure support of 5 cmH~2~O, the application of inspiratory pressure support of 10 cmH~2~O during exercise resulted in a statistically significant improvement in exercise endurance in patients with COPD compared with exercise without inspiratory pressure support. However, on an individual basis, large differences in responses were found. Inspiratory muscle weakness was revealed as a determinant of improvement in exercise endurance due to the application of inspiratory pressure support of 10 cmH~2~O, explaining only 24% of the variance in outcome.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".