Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation programme including either O2 inhalation or noninvasive ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is crucial in managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and enhancing functional capacity and health status. Oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may be needed to be incorporated into rehabilitation to augment the effectiveness of physical training. Objectives To compare and assess the impact of the PR programme alone and with augmentation with O~2~ or NIV on COPD patients. Methods Seventy-five COPD patients were equally divided into three groups: group 1 patients performed 8 week-PR programme only. Group 2 performed the PR programme while receiving O~2~. Group 3 completed the PR programme plus NIV. Modified Borg scale, VO~2~ max, modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, 6-minute walk test, COPD assessment test score, spirometric measures and arterial blood gases were assessed before and after the programme. Results The outcome measurements showed meaningful improvement compared with the baseline in the three studied groups. However, VO~2~ max in group 3 showed higher significant improvement than both groups 1 and 2. Regarding 6-minute walk test, groups 2 and 3 had a higher significant improvement than group 1. COPD assessment test score in group 3 showed higher significant improvement than groups 1 and 2. Arterial blood gases in groups 2 and 3 showed significant increase in partial pressure of arterial oxygen and arterial oxygen saturation, but group 3 only had a significant decrease in PaCO~2~. Conclusion O~2~ supplementation and NIV help severe to very severe COPD patients to perform higher exercise intensity, so they augment the benefits of PR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".