Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation in Long-COVID-19 Patients with Persistent Breathlessness and Fatigue: The COVID-Rehab Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Cardiopulmonary and brain functions are frequently impaired after COVID-19 infection. Exercise rehabilitation could have a major impact on the healing process of patients affected by long COVID-19. (2) Methods: The COVID-Rehab study will investigate the effectiveness of an eight-week cardiopulmonary rehabilitation program on cardiorespiratory fitness (V˙O2max) in long-COVID-19 individuals. Secondary objectives will include functional capacity, quality of life, perceived stress, sleep quality (questionnaires), respiratory capacity (spirometry test), coagulation, inflammatory and oxidative-stress profile (blood draw), cognition (neuropsychological tests), neurovascular coupling and pulsatility (fNIRS). The COVID-Rehab project was a randomised clinical trial with two intervention arms (1:1 ratio) that will be blindly evaluated. It will recruit a total of 40 individuals: (1) rehabilitation: centre-based exercise-training program (eight weeks, three times per week); (2) control: individuals will have to maintain their daily habits. (3) Conclusions: Currently, there are no specific rehabilitation guidelines for long-COVID-19 patients, but preliminary studies show encouraging results. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05035628).
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".