Physiological and Symptomatic Responses to Arm versus Leg Activities in People with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the mechanisms underlying exercise limitations and symptoms during leg activities have been investigated in detail, knowledge of potential differences between leg and arm activities are not well understood and results from individual studies are contradictory. Thus, the aim of the present study was to synthesize physiological and symptomatic responses during activities involving the arms relative to activities involving the legs in people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Any study with a cross-sectional comparison of acute physiological (cardiorespiratory, metabolic) and symptomatic responses to activities performed with the arms versus the legs were included. Studies were sub-grouped based on the type of activity performed (cycle ergometer, resistance exercises, or functional test/activities). Eighteen studies with 423 individuals with COPD were included. Leg cycle ergometer resulted in greater tidal volume (137 mL), minute ventilation (4.8 L/min), and oxygen consumption (164 mL/min) than arm cycle ergometer, while symptomatic responses were similar. Resistance exercises resulted in similar physiological and symptomatic responses irrespective of whether the legs or the arms were involved while studies on functional activities report different results depending on the type and intensity of the activity performed. With the exception of cycle ergometer activities, physiological and symptomatic responses do not seem to depend on whether the arms or the legs are used, but rather seem to be task and intensity dependent. These novel findings suggest, for example, that strategies used to increase exercise tolerance should not be dependent on whether the arms or the legs are used, but rather the intensity of specific activity performed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".