Influence of Previous-Year Physical Activity on the Cognition of Older COPD Patients During Exacerbation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence demonstrates the negative health impact of physical inactivity. Our aim was to examine the influence of previous-year physical activity (PA) on the cognition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients during exacerbation. METHODS: Observational study. One hundred and fifty-one patients with COPD exacerbation were recruited over a period of 3 years and divided in 2 groups according to their previous activity level. Sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical variables were collected. Our main outcome measures were previous-year PA level, measured using the Modified Baecke Physical Activity Questionnaire and cognitive status measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. RESULTS: The cognitive variables that exhibited significant differences (P < .05) according to PA level were the visuoconstructional skills subscore, attention subscore, language subscore, orientation subscore, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment total score, with worse results in the sedentary group. Based on the relationships between total scores, the Baecke score was positively correlated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment total score (r = .457). CONCLUSIONS: The cognitive status of COPD patients during an exacerbation is related to previous-year PA level. Previous-year PA level should be taken into consideration when patients with a COPD exacerbation are evaluated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".