Physical and affective components of dyspnoea are improved by pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Dyspnoea is a multidimensional experience of breathing discomfort, but its affective dimension is unfrequently assessed in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the effectiveness of a home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programme on the physical and affective components of dyspnoea assessed by the Dyspnoea-12 (D-12) questionnaire. We also determined the baseline characteristics that contributed to the change in D-12 scores. Methods In this retrospective study, 225 people with COPD (age, 65±11 years; forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), 35±15% of predicted value) were enrolled into a person-centric home-based PR, consisting of a weekly supervised 90 min home session during 8 weeks. D-12 questionnaire, health status, anxiety and depressive symptoms, exercise tolerance and general fatigue were assessed at baseline (M0), at the end of PR programme (M2), and 8 (M8) and 14 months (M14) after M0. Multivariable analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models were performed to identify the baseline characteristics that contributed to the change in D-12 scores. Results Both physical and affective components of dyspnoea and all the other outcome measures were improved at M2, M8 and M14 compared with baseline (p<0.05). Baseline body mass index was the only significant independent predictor of the changes in physical dyspnoea score, while the change in the affective dimension of dyspnoea after PR was associated with FEV 1 , anxiety symptoms and exercise tolerance (6 min stepper test). However, since these variables had only a small impact on the changes in D-12 questionnaire scores, results from the ANCOVA analysis should be taken cautiously. Conclusion Both physical and affective components of dyspnoea were improved, at short term and long term, by 8 weeks of individualised home-based PR. The present results support the importance of assessing dyspnoea as a multidimensional experience during PR, warranting replication by robustly designed randomised and controlled studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".