Prevalence of comorbidities and impact on pulmonary rehabilitation outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of comorbid conditions could impact performance in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes. We aimed to compare the comorbidity prevalence among those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and interstitial lung disease (ILD) and evaluate the impact on PR response. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study, recording comorbidities for all patients with COPD or ILD referred to PR. Participants were classified as responders to PR if they met the minimal important difference for exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The prevalence of comorbidities and impact on PR outcomes were compared by lung disease and by sex using a univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The mean number of comorbidities was similar among those with COPD (3.3±2.1, n=242) and ILD (3.2±1.9, n=66) (p>0.05). Females had a higher number of comorbidities than males in both COPD (p=0.001) and ILD (p=0.017) populations. Circulatory (64%) and endocrine/metabolic (45%) conditions were most common in COPD. In ILD, digestive (55%) and circulatory (53%) comorbidities were most prevalent. In people with ILD, those over 65 years, with musculoskeletal/connective tissue disease or circulatory disease were less likely to obtain meaningful improvements in exercise capacity. There was no impact of comorbidities on exercise capacity in COPD or on HRQoL in ILD. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with COPD or ILD enrolled in PR programmes have multiple comorbidities that may affect improvements in exercise capacity. PR programmes may be less effective for older adults with ILD and comorbid circulatory or musculoskeletal disease.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".