Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Quadriceps Muscle Strength in People with COPD following Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quadriceps strength training is a key component of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Clinical interpretability of changes in muscle strength following PR is however limited due to the lack of cut-off values to define clinical improvement. This study estimated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the isotonic and isometric quadriceps muscle strength assessed with the one-repetition maximum (1RM) and hand-held dynamometry (HHD) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) following PR.A secondary analysis of a real life non-randomised controlled study was conducted in people with COPD enrolled in a 12-week community-based PR programme. Anchor and distribution-based methods were used to compute the MCIDs. The anchors explored were the St. George’s respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ) and the six-minute walk test (6MWT) using Pearson’s correlations. Pooled MCIDs were computed using the arithmetic weighted mean (2/3 anchor, 1/3 distribution-based methods) and reported as absolute and/or percentage of change values.Eighty-nine people with COPD (84% male, 69.9 ± 7.9 years, FEV1 49.9 ± 18.9% predicted) were included. No correlations were found between changes in 1RM and the SGRQ neither between changes in HHD and the SGRQ and 6MWT (p > 0.05). Thus, anchor-based methods were used only in the MCID of the 1RM with the 6MWT as the anchor. The pooled MCIDs were 5.7Kg and 26.9% of change for the isotonic quadriceps muscle strength with 1RM and 5.2KgF for isometric quadriceps muscle strength assessed with HHD.The MCIDs found are estimates to improve interpretability of community-based PR effects on quadriceps muscle strength and may contribute to guide interventions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".