Behavioural interventions targeting physical activity improve psychocognitive outcomes in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the impact of a self-management behaviour modification (SMBM) programme with/without bronchodilators and with/without exercise training (ExT) to improve daily physical activity on psychological and cognitive outcomes in COPD patients as a secondary analysis of the PHYSACTO trial. A 12-week, four-group, randomised, partially double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial of SMBM in addition to tiotropium 5 µg, tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg, tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg plus ExT, or placebo was conducted in 304 patients. Outcomes included anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)-A), depression (HADS-D and Patient-Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9) and cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)). All outcomes showed statistically and clinically significant improvements after 12 weeks independent of treatment group. However, greater improvements in HADS-A and MoCA were seen in patients who exhibited greater increases in physical activity and exercise capacity, respectively, whereas greater improvements in HADS-D and PHQ-9 were seen in patients who exhibited increases in either physical activity or exercise capacity. The results indicate that SMBM with/without bronchodilators or ExT was associated with improved psychological and cognitive functioning. Anxiety reduced with increased physical activity, cognitive function improved with increased exercise capacity, and depression reduced with increases in either physical activity or exercise capacity. Interventions that increase daily physical activity or exercise capacity may improve psychological and cognitive outcomes in 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".