Impact of cognitive capacity on physical performance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COPD is often accompanied by cognitive dysfunction and impaired physical function. However, their interrelationship hasn’t been well studied. The aim of the review was to determine the impact of cognition on physical performance in COPD. Methods: Established scoping review methods were performed.1 A systematic search was conducted in the databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, Cochrane (CENTRAL), APA PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Search terms included: COPD, cognition, and exercise capacity. Study designs included: cross-sectional, dual task and interventional. Two reviewers independently assessed the literature for inclusion, data abstraction, and quality assessment. Results: Our search identified 10,045 articles and 40 met the inclusion criteria. 5365 patients (65% male; mean age of 66) with a mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 46% predicted were included. Cognitive scores correlated with strength, balance, and hand dexterity, while 6-minute walk distance (n= 9) was mostly similar among cognitively impaired and normal COPD patients. In 2 reports, regression analyses showed that delayed recall and the trail making test were associated with balance and handgrip strength, respectively. Dual task studies (n= 5) reported impaired balance, gait variability or velocity in COPD patients compared to healthy adults. Exercise intervention studies (n= 11) showed variable improvements in cognition and exercise capacity. Conclusions: Associations between cognition and physical function were observed in several studies but the mechanistic underpinning requires further study. 1Arksey & O’Malley, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".