Endurance Time During Constant Work Rate Cycle Ergometry in COPD: Development of an Integrated Database From Interventional Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: 2022; 9[2]:252-265), we described a conceptual framework establishing exercise endurance's direct relationship to an individual with COPD's experience of physical functioning in daily life, and that increase in exercise endurance is a patient-centered, meaningful treatment benefit. We further proposed endurance time during constant work rate cycle ergometery (CWRCE) as a useful efficacy endpoint in clinical therapeutic intervention trials. In this current publication, we describe the process of assembling an integrated database of endurance time responses to interventions in COPD. Methods: We sought participant-level data from published studies incorporating CWRCE as an outcome measure. A literature search screened 2993 publications and identified 553 studies for assessment. Two interventions had sufficient data across studies to warrant data extraction: bronchodilators and rehabilitative exercise training. Investigators were contacted and requested to provide participant-by-participant data from their published studies. Results: The final dataset included data from 8 bronchodilator studies (2166) participants and 15 exercise training studies (3488 participants). The database includes 71 variables per participant, comprising demographic, pulmonary function, and detailed physiologic response data. This paper provides a detailed description of the analysis population, while analysis supporting the validation/qualification process and addressing other scientific questions will be described in subsequent publications.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it