Cardiorespiratory Responses between One-legged and Two-legged Cycling in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International guidelines recommend exercise training within pulmonary rehabilitation (PR)\nfor adults with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) [1]. However, the magnitude of benefits of\nPR in IPF may be less than in COPD [2] and are not sustained [3]. Partitioned muscle training\nhas been investigated for other chronic diseases where a central limitation to exercise\ndominates [4-6]. One-legged cycling partitions the targeted exercising muscle thereby\nreducing the total ventilatory burden for the same muscle specific power. In ventilatory\nlimited patients with COPD, partitioned training increases cardiorespiratory fitness [4, 7]\nmeasured by peak oxygen uptake (V̇\nO2pk) greater than that achieved with conventional twolegged cycle training.\nWe hypothesised that patients with IPF would increase their tolerable exercise time of a leg\nexercising alone (one-legged cycling) compared to two-legged cycling so that the total work\nwould be doubled (the primary outcome). We also aimed to quantify peripheral muscle\naerobic capacity relative to the central capacity by determining the ratio of V̇\nO2pk achieved\nduring one- versus two-legged cycling.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".