MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Determinants of DLCO and contribution to exercise capacity and symptoms

2022· article· en· W4312278591 on OpenAlexaff
Eldar Priel, K. J. Killian, Imran Satia

Bibliographic record

Venue01.05 - Clinical respiratory physiology, exercise and functional imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDLCOPulmonary function testingSpirometryPopulationMedicineDiffusing capacityPulmonary Diffusing CapacityCardiologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyLungLung function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The single breath diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide(DLCO) is part of comprehensive pulmonary function testing. Research questions: What are the factors that influence the DLCO, and how does the DCLO influence the intensity of symptoms and the maximum power output achieved during exercise? Methods: Incremental cardio-pulmonary exercise testing included pulmonary function testing, capillary blood gases and muscle strength at McMaster University Medical Center between 1988-2012. This allowed a quantitative analysis of these factors to the symptoms experienced on mBORG scale as power incrementally increased to the MPO achieved. Results: 37,672 subjects had DLCO measured. In the 16,298 with normal spirometry and exercise capacity, the DLCO equation was calculated. In the total population, the effort required to cycle, and breath intensified in a positively accelerating fashion with power and increased as the MPO achieved decreased. Interpretation: The DLCO is predominantly influenced by height, is 15% higher in males, and 6% higher per gram of haemoglobin. A lower DLCO is associated with an increase in symptom intensity, and a lower MPO during exercise

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue01.05 - Clinical respiratory physiology, exercise and functional imaging→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→