Reduced exercise tolerance in mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: The contribution of combined abnormalities of diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide and ventilatory efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objective The combination of both reduced resting diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and ventilatory efficiency (increased ventilatory requirement for CO2 clearance [V˙E/V˙CO2]) has been linked to exertional dyspnoea and exercise intolerance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. The current study examined if low resting DLCO and higher exercise ventilatory requirements were associated with earlier critical dynamic mechanical constraints, dyspnoea and exercise limitation in patients with mild COPD. Methods In this retrospective analysis, we compared V˙E/V˙CO2, dynamic inspiratory reserve volume (IRV), dyspnoea and exercise capacity in groups of patients with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage 1 COPD with (1) a resting DLCO at or greater than the lower limit of normal (≥LLN; Global Lung Function Initiative reference equations [n = 44]) or (2) below the n = 33), and age‐ and sex‐matched healthy controls (n = 81). Results Spirometry and resting lung volumes were similar in the two COPD groups. During exercise, V˙E/V˙CO2 (nadir and slope) was consistently higher in the DLCO < LLN compared with the other groups (all p < 0.05). The DLCO < LLN group had lower IRV and greater dyspnoea intensity at standardized submaximal work rates and lower peak work rate and oxygen uptake than the other two groups (all p < 0.05). Conclusion Reduced exercise capacity in patients with DLCO < LLN was related to higher ventilatory requirements, a faster rate of decline in dynamic IRV and greater dyspnoea during exercise. These simple measurements should be considered for the clinical evaluation of unexplained exercise intolerance in individuals with ostensibly mild 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".