A Breath of Fresh Air: Abstracts from the 2009 Canadian Respiratory Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALe: Preliminary evidence suggests that individuals with COPD exhibit deficits in balance control.Further investigation of balance and risk of falls is warranted in these patients.The aim of the present study was to determine the clinical measures that discriminate fallers from nonfallers among individuals with COPD.MeTHODS: A cross-sectional study design was used.Subjects > 60 yrs with COPD attended a single assessment session.One-year incidence of falls was collected via self-report questionnaire.Functional balance was determined using the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and the Activity Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale.Exercise tolerance and functional limitation were assessed using the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) and the MRC dyspnea scale, respectively.ReSULTS: 39 COPD subjects (FEV 1 = 42 ± 17% predicted; age 71 ± 7 yrs) completed the study.46% (n=18) reported at least one fall in the preceding year.Statistically significant differences between fallers and non-fallers were found for the ABC (65.8 ± 18.2 vs. 81.7 ± 11.1; p = 0.002), use of supplemental oxygen (72% vs. 24%; p = 0.002), TUG (17.0 ± 4.9 vs. 14.0 ± 3.1 seconds; p = 0.024), BBS (45.2 ± 5.4 vs. 48.8± 5.0; p = 0.042) and MRC (median 4, IQR 3 vs.median 3, IQR 2; p = 0.046).Use of supplementary oxygen and balance confidence were independent predictors of falls (p = 0.027; p = 0.033, respectively).CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COPD fall frequently.Standard clinical balance measures discriminate self-reported fallers from non-fallers.These observations draw attention to an important secondary impairment in 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.021 |
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".