Impact of cognitive capacity on physical performance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often accompanied by impaired cognitive and physical function. However, the role of cognitive function on motor control and purposeful movement is not well studied. The aim of the review was to determine the impact of cognition on physical performance in COPD. Methods: Scoping review methods were performed including searches of the databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, Cochrane (CENTRAL), APA PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion, data abstraction, and quality assessment. Results: Of 11,252 identified articles, 44 met the inclusion criteria. The review included 5743 individuals with COPD (68% male) with the forced expiratory volume in one second range of 24–69% predicted. Cognitive scores correlated with strength, balance, and hand dexterity, while 6-min walk distance ( n = 9) was usually similar among COPD patients with and without cognitive impairment. 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 or gait in COPD patients compared to healthy adults. Cognitive or physical Interventions ( n = 20) showed variable improvements in cognition and exercise capacity. Conclusions: Cognition in COPD appears to be more related to balance, hand, and dual task function, than 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".