Cognitive function following pulmonary rehabilitation and post-discharge recovery from exacerbation in people with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment (CI) is prevalent in COPD and is associated with poor health-related quality of life. Recovery of cognition following an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD), the impact of CI on pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) uptake and the effect of PR on CI are not fully understood. METHODS: This 6-week prospective study analysed 67 people with stable COPD symptoms who completed PR (PR group) and the recovery of 45 people admitted for AECOPD (AECOPD group). All participants were assessed for cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA]), health status (COPD Assessment Test, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire), lower extremity function (Short Physical Performance Battery), and psychological well-being (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score). Follow up assessments were carried out after a 6-week recovery post-discharge in AECOPD group and after PR in the PR group. RESULTS: AECOPD group showed no improvement in MoCA following a 6-week recovery post-discharge (Δ-0.8 ± 3.2, p = 0.205), despite improvements in all other clinical outcomes. PR uptake among the AECOPD group was not associated with the presence of CI (p = 0.325). Participants in the PR group with CI at baseline showed a significant improvement in MoCA score following PR (Δ1.6 ± 2.4, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Cognition does not improve following 6-week recovery post-AECOPD, and CI may influence patients' response to PR referral as an inpatient. PR improves cognition in people with stable COPD symptoms and CI. People with AECOPD should be actively encouraged to attend PR irrespective of mild-moderate cognition but may require additional support or opportunities to take part.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".