A Conceptual Framework for Use of Increased Endurance Time During Constant Work Rate Cycle Ergometry as a Patient-Focused Meaningful Outcome in COPD Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chronic Lung Disease Biomarker and Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Consortium (CBQC) evaluates the potential of biomarkers and outcome measures as drug development tools. Exercise endurance is an objective indicator of treatment benefit, closely related to daily physical function. Therefore, it is an ideal candidate for an outcome for drug development trials. Unfortunately, no exercise endurance measure is qualified by regulatory authorities for use in trials of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and no approved COPD therapies have claims of improving exercise endurance. Consequently, it has been challenging for developers to consider this outcome when designing clinical trials for new therapies. Endurance time during constant work rate cycle ergometry (CWRCE), performed on an electronically braked stationary cycle ergometer, provides an exercise endurance measure under standardized conditions. Baseline individualized work rate for each participant is set using an incremental test. During CWRCE the patient is encouraged to continue exercising for as long as possible. Although not required, physiological and sensory responses (e.g., pulmonary ventilation, heart rate, dyspnea ratings) are frequently collected to support interpretation of endurance time changes. Exercise tolerance limit is reached when the individual is limited by symptoms, unable to maintain pedaling cadence or unable to continue safely. At exercise cessation, exercise duration is recorded. An CWRCE endurance time increase from the pre-treatment baseline is proposed as a key efficacy endpoint in clinical trials. In COPD, improved exercise endurance has a direct relationship to the experience of physical functioning in daily life, which is a patient-centered, meaningful benefit.
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 | 0.344 | 0.282 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".