50% of the physiological benefit of training during Pulmonary Rehabilitation is achieved after only a few sessions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary rehabilitation(PR) is based on the significant change in questionnaire scores and physiological exercise measurements. Recently, we established the MCID of a semi-paced 3’Chair Rise Test (3CRT) in a PR real-life study (1). In this study, a battery of simple and more complex exercise tests were also repeated after a few training sessions in order to judge whether the magnitude of the final physiological benefit was due in part to the improvement in early-acquired locomotor comfort. Method: Among 162 COPD patients (GOLD II, III, IV) referred to PR, 116 patients (mean FEV1: 1.3±0.5 L; 48 ±16% pred.) were evaluated. After having accustomed the patients to the different exercise tests, we measured the maximum performance for 6MWT, endurance cycle time, 3CRT, 1STST at the beginning, after only 6 to 8 sessions (i.e, 14 (11.8 - 16.4) days), and at the end of PR. Results: Significant improvement was achieved for all exercise tests 6MWT, Endurance Cycle, 3’CRT, 1STST (respectively 48.9m, 4.1 min, 9.1 lifts, 5.7 lifts); and for scores DIRECT, CAT, total SGRQ respectively -1.9, -2.7, - 4.7 Units. From the 6- 8th sessions, about 50% of the final benefit was noted for 6MWT, Endurance Cycle, 3’CRT, 1STST reaching the MCID for 3’CRT, 1STST-Endurance Cycle. Method: PR is consistently effective at all GOLD stages according to the test carried out, pleading for a multidimensional evaluation.The physiological benefit of PR can be assessed by exercise tests based on vertical rather than horizontal movement or cycling, which require a specific environment or equipment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".