Association between patient-reported outcomes and exercise test outcomes in patients with COPD before and after pulmonary rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the years, the scope of outcomes assessment in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has broadened, allowing for the evaluation of various patient-reported outcomes (PROs). As it still remains unclear whether and to what extent PROs mirror the exercise performance of patients with COPD, the current study aimed to assess the association between different exercise test outcomes and PROs, before and after pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). METHODS: Correlations between PROs used to describe health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mood status, level of care dependency and dyspnea in patients with COPD and commonly used laboratory- and field-based exercise test outcomes were evaluated in 518 individuals with COPD attending PR. RESULTS: Overall, correlations between PROs and exercise test outcomes at baseline were statistically significant. The correlation between modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score and 6-min walking distance (6MWD) was strongest (ρ:-0.65; p<0.001). HRQoL related PROs showed weak correlations with exercise outcomes at baseline. Moderate correlations were found between St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score and 6MWD (r:-0.53; p<0.001) and maximal workload achieved during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (ρ:-0.48; p<0.001); and between Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) total score and 6MWD (r:-0.48; p<0.001) and maximal workload (ρ:-0.43; p<0.001). When significant, correlations between changes in exercise test outcomes and changes in PROs after PR were generally very weak or weak. The highest correlation was found between changes in CCQ total score and changes in 6MWD (ρ: - 0.36; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PROs and exercise test outcomes, although significantly correlated with each other, assess different disease features in patients with COPD. Individual PROs need to be supported by additional functional measurements whenever possible, in order to get a more detailed insight in the effectiveness of a PR program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register ( NL3263 /NTR3416). Registered 2 May 2012.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".