Effects of high- and moderate-intensity exercise on central hemodynamic and oxygen uptake recovery kinetics in CHF-COPD overlap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The oxygen uptake (V˙O2) kinetics during onset of and recovery from exercise have been shown to provide valuable parameters regarding functional capacity of both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic heart failure (CHF) patients. To investigate the influence of comorbidity of COPD in patients with CHF with reduced ejection fraction on recovery from submaximal exercise, 9 CHF-COPD male patients and 10 age-, gender-, and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF)-matched CHF patients underwent constant-load exercise tests (CLET) at moderate and high loads. The V˙O2, heart rate (HR), and cardiac output (CO) recovery kinetics were determined for the monoexponential relationship between these variables and time. Within-group analysis showed that the recovery time constant of HR (P<0.05, d=1.19 for CHF and 0.85 for CHF-COPD) and CO (P<0.05, d=1.68 for CHF and 0.69 for CHF-COPD) and the mean response time (MRT) of CO (P<0.05, d=1.84 for CHF and 0.73 for CHF-COPD) were slower when moderate and high loads were compared. CHF-COPD patients showed smaller amplitude of CO recovery kinetics (P<0.05) for both moderate (d=2.15) and high (d=1.07) CLET. Although the recovery time constant and MRT means were greater in CHF-COPD, CHF and CHF-COPD groups were not differently affected by load (P>0.05 in group vs load analysis). The ventilatory efficiency was related to MRT of V˙O2 during high CLET (r=0.71). Our results suggested that the combination of CHF and COPD may further impair the recovery kinetics compared to CHF alone.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".