Functional clinical impairments and frailty in interstitial lung disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) often present with persistent dyspnoea and reduced exercise capacity and quality of life (QoL), but their functional limitation in relation to their frailty status remains unclear. We thus aimed to compare exercise tolerance, functional mobility, and muscle function and composition between ILD participants and healthy subjects and according to their frailty status. Methods: questionnaires. Muscle composition was obtained using noncontrast computed tomography scans. The frailty status of patients with ILD was determined using the Fried frailty phenotype assessment. Results: Compared with control subjects, ILD participants exhibited significantly lower performance in every exercise and functional capacity test, higher dyspnoea and depression scores, and worse QoL. In ILD participants, the same observations were noted for the frail subgroup compared with the robust subgroup. No differences in muscle function and composition were observed between the ILD and control group, but mid-thigh muscle cross-sectional area and skeletal muscle index were significantly reduced in frail ILD participants. Conclusions: ILD patients present reduced exercise tolerance and functional capacity, and have decreased health-related QoL, when compared with healthy subjects. Physical frailty seems to be associated with worse clinical status, exercise tolerance, muscle and functional impairment, and decreased QoL. The 1-min sit-to-stand test may be a good discriminatory test for frailty status in ILD patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".