MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172895361 · doi:10.2147/copd.s277523

How to Assess Breathlessness in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2021· review· en· W3172895361 on OpenAlexaff
Hayley Lewthwaite, Dennis Jensen, Magnus Ekström

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of COPD · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCOPDMedicineProvocation testPhysical therapyMinimal clinically important differenceRating scaleContext (archaeology)Pulmonary rehabilitationAsthmaPulmonary diseaseSeverity of illnessIntensive care medicinePsychologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activity-related breathlessness is the most problematic symptom of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), arising from complex interactions between peripheral pathophysiology (both pulmonary and non-pulmonary) and central perceptual processing. To capture information on the breathlessness experienced by people with COPD, many different instruments exist, which vary in applicability depending on the purpose and context of assessment. We reviewed common breathlessness assessment instruments, providing recommendations around how to assess the severity of, or change in, breathlessness in people with COPD in daily life or in response to exercise provocation. A summary of 14 instruments for the assessment of breathlessness severity in daily life is presented, with 11/14 (79%) instruments having established minimal clinically importance differences (MCIDs) to assess and interpret breathlessness change. Instruments varied in their scope of assessment (functional impact of breathlessness or the severity of breathlessness during different activities, focal periods, or alongside other common COPD symptoms), dimensions of breathlessness assessed (uni-/multidimensional), rating scale properties and intended method of administration (self-administered versus interviewer led). Assessing breathlessness in response to an acute exercise provocation overcomes some limitations of daily life assessment, such as recall bias and lack of standardized exertional stimulus. To assess the severity of breathlessness in response to an acute exercise provocation, unidimensional or multidimensional instruments are available. Borg's 0-10 category rating scale is the most widely used instrument and has estimates for a MCID during exercise. When assessing the severity of breathlessness during exercise, measures should be taken at a standardized submaximal point, whether during laboratory-based tests like cardiopulmonary exercise testing or field-based tests, such as the 3-min constant rate stair stepping or shuttle walking tests. Recommendations are provided around which instruments to use for breathlessness assessment in daily life and in relation to exertion in people with 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of COPDSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207