Are the “critical” inspiratory constraints actually decisive to limit exercise tolerance in COPD?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise intolerance is characteristically multi-factorial in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [1]. At least in symptomatic patients with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation, higher operating lung volumes assume a relevant role in decreasing patients’ tolerance to sustain “prolonged” exercise. As a consequence of the dynamic increase in the end-expiratory lung volume, tidal volume (VT) occurs close to total lung capacity (TLC), thereby reducing the room for further lung–chest wall expansion. The combination of low dynamic lung compliance and a severely reduced inspiratory reserve volume causes a mismatch between a growing respiratory neural drive and the resulting lung–chest wall displacement [2]. It has been postulated that such critical inspiratory constraints (CIC) lead to a plateau in VT, and a concomitant increase in dyspnoea as a function of ventilation ( V ′E) [3]. Accordingly, patients change their perception of the uncomfortable respiratory sensations from “laboured breathing” to “insufficient inspiration”, prompting early exercise termination [4]. The concept of critical inspiratory constraints is key to the modern understanding of exercise pathophysiology in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".