Effects of Oxygen on Exercise Duration in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients before and after Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen therapy has been shown to improve exercise performance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is unknown whether the magnitude of this benefit would be affected by participation in a pulmonary rehabilitation program. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of supplemental oxygen on exercise capacity in nonhypoxemic COPD patients before and after participation in a pulmonary rehabilitation program. METHODS: Sixteen patients with COPD underwent two pairs of constant-load exercise tests before and after participation in a three-month outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program. Each pair of exercise tests consisted of a test performed with room air and a second test performed with 50% supplemental oxygen, in random order. The primary outcome was the difference in exercise duration between tests performed with supplemental oxygen and with room air. This difference was compared before and after participation in a pulmonary rehabilitation program. RESULTS: Supplemental oxygen therapy improved exercise duration by 75 s before participation in a pulmonary rehabilitation program and by 153 s following pulmonary rehabilitation. Rehabilitation alone improved exercise duration by 28 s, but rehabilitation appeared to augment the exercise benefits of supplemental oxygen therapy by a mean of 78 s (95% CI 11 s to 145 s; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The effects of supplemental oxygen therapy were augmented after pulmonary rehabilitation. The improvement in exercise duration with supplemental oxygen following rehabilitation was greater than either supplemental oxygen or pulmonary rehabilitation alone.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".