Tidal Flow-Volume Loop Enveloping at Rest in Advanced COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expiratory flow limitation (EFL) is a key physiological abnormality in COPD. Comparing tidal-to-maximum flow-volume (F-V) loops is a simple and widely available method to assess EFL in patients with COPD. We aimed to investigate whether subjects with COPD showing significant resting tidal F-V enveloping (ie, > 50% tidal volume) would present with higher exertional operating lung volumes, which would lead to greater burden of dyspnea and poorer exercise tolerance compared to their counterparts. METHODS: 37 subjects with COPD (21 males; 63.1 ± 9.2 years old; FEV 1 = 37 ± 12% predicted) and 9 paired controls (3 males; 55.9 ± 11.7 y old) performed an incremental cardiopulmonary exercise testing on a cycle ergometer. Dyspnea perception, inspiratory capacity maneuvers after 3–4 sequential tidal F-V loops, and esophageal and gastric pressures were measured during exercise. RESULTS: Most subjects (31 of 37, 84%) presented with significant tidal F-V enveloping. Critical inspiratory constraints and upward dyspnea inflection points (as a function of both work rate and ventilation) were reached earlier in these subjects, thereby leading to poorer exercise tolerance compared to their counterparts ( P = .01). Abdominal muscle recruitment (ie, increase in gastric pressure ≥ 15%) during tidal expiration was significantly higher in the EFL+ group. However, this did not bear an influence on the operating lung volumes, inspiratory constraints, dyspnea, cardiocirculatory responses, or exercise tolerance ( P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Tidal F-V loop enveloping at rest should be valued as it is related to relevant clinical outcomes, such as dyspnea burden and exercise tolerance in subjects with COPD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".