Investigation of the relationship between cognitive function and upper extremity exercise capacity in COPD- a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Associated with increased mortality, cognitive function in COPD is affected from hypoxia, hypercapnia, increased oxidative stress, physical inactivity, comorbidities. Although it has been shown that cognitive function is associated with functional capacity in COPD, there is no study examining its relationship with upper extremity exercise capacity in detail. Aim: It was aimed to investigate the relationship between cognitive function and upper extremity exercise capacity in COPD. Methods: Twenty-seven patients (mean age:66.4±6.95 years, FEV1%:43.8±17.7) were included. The cognitive functions were evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MOCA), upper extremity exercise capacity was evaluated with the six-minute pegboard ring test (6PRT). The patients were divided into two groups as impaired cognitive function or normal. The independent-t-test and pearson correlation analysis were used for the statiscally analysis. Results: Seventeen (63%) of the patients had impaired cognitive function. Age, body mass index, pulmonary functions and 6PRT were similar (p>0.05). While 6PRT score was not associated with MOCA score in the normal group (p>0.05), 6PRT score of the impaired cognitive function group was correlated with total and attention scores of MOCA (r=0.525, p=0.030; r=0.640, p=0.006, respectively). Conclusion: It was found that upper extremity exercise capacity is associated with cognitive function in COPD with impaired cognitive function and it was concluded that it may be affected especially by attention. We think that the cognitive functions of COPD should also be taken into account when evaluating upper extremity exercise capacity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".