Cardiorespiratory Response during the 1-min Sit-to-Stand Test in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the cardiorespiratory response during a 1-min sit-to-stand test (1STS) in comparison with cycling cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and in healthy subjects and to evaluate whether 1STS may induce leg fatigue in these individuals. METHODS: Fourteen people with severe COPD and 12 healthy subjects performed a 1STS and a CPET during which cardiorespiratory response, perception of dyspnea, and leg fatigue were assessed. Quadriceps strength was assessed before and after 1STS, and contractile fatigue was defined as a postexercise fall in quadriceps twitch force greater than 15% of resting values. RESULTS: In COPD, peak V˙O2, V˙E, and HR achieved during 1STS reached 113%, 103%, and 93% of the corresponding values during CPET, respectively. Decrease in SpO2 from preexercise to peak exercise and the magnitude of dynamic hyperinflation were similar between 1STS and CPET. Borg dyspnea and leg fatigue scores were higher for CPET than 1STS. In healthy subjects, peak cardiorespiratory demand and symptom scores were higher during CPET compared with 1STS. A V˙O2 overshoot during recovery was observed only in people with COPD. After 1STS, the V˙O2 half-time recovery of COPD was 152 ± 25 s compared with 74 ± 18 in healthy subjects (P < 0.01). Ten people with COPD and five healthy subjects were considered as fatiguers. CONCLUSION: The 1STS induced a similar cardiorespiratory stress to that of CPET and was associated with contractile quadriceps fatigue in people with severe COPD. The V˙O2 overshoot and slower recovery time of cardiorespiratory variables seen in COPD demonstrate the clinical relevance of monitoring the recovery phase of exercise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".