Short-term effects of Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor (Orkambi™) on exertional symptoms, exercise performance, and ventilatory responses in adults with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor (LUM/IVA) modestly improves lung function following 1 month of treatment but it is unknown if this translates into improvements in exercise endurance and exertional symptoms. METHODS: Adult CF participants completed a symptom-limited constant load cycling test with simultaneous assessments of dyspnea and leg discomfort ratings pre- and 1 month post-initiation of LUM/IVA. RESULTS: Endurance time, exertional dyspnea and leg discomfort ratings at submaximal exercise did not change significantly. There was a significant inverse correlation between changes in leg discomfort and endurance time (r = - 0.88; p = 0.009) following 1-month of LUM/IVA. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 1-month of LUM/IVA did not increase endurance time or modify exertional dyspnea or leg discomfort ratings. However, individuals who experienced a reduction in leg discomfort following LUM/IVA had an improvement in endurance time. Future studies with a larger sample size are needed to verify these findings and to assess the long-term effects of LUM/IVA on exercise outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02821130. Registered July 1, 2016.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".