Survival after inpatient or outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease: a multicentre retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) on survival in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) is unknown. Given the challenges conducting a large randomised controlled trial, we aimed to determine whether improvement in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) was associated with better survival. METHODS: This retrospective, international cohort study included patients with fibrotic ILD participating in either inpatient or outpatient PR at 12 sites in 5 countries. Multivariable models were used to estimate the association between change in 6MWD and time to death or lung transplantation accounting for clustering by centre and other confounders. RESULTS: 701 participants (445 men and 256 women) with fibrotic ILD were included. The mean±SD ages of the 196 inpatients and 505 outpatients were 70±11 and 69±12 years, respectively. Baseline/changes in 6MWD were 262±128/55±83 m for inpatients and 358±125/34±65 m for outpatients. Improvement in 6MWD during PR was associated with lower hazard rates for death or lung transplant on adjusted analysis for both inpatient (HR per 10 m 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97, p<0.001) and outpatient PR (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.00, p=0.042). Participation in ≥80% of planned outpatient PR sessions was associated with a 33% lower risk of death (95% CI 0.49% to 0.92%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with fibrotic ILD who improved physical performance during PR had better survival compared with those who did not improve performance. Confirmation of these hypothesis-generating findings in a randomised controlled trial would be required to definitely change clinical practice, and would further support efforts to improve availability of PR for patients with fibrotic ILD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".