Exercise responses and mental health symptoms in COVID-19 survivors with dyspnoea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Dyspnoea is a common persistent symptom post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness. However, the mechanisms underlying dyspnoea in the post-COVID-19 syndrome remain unclear. The aim of our study was to examine dyspnoea quality and intensity, burden of mental health symptoms, and differences in exercise responses in people with and without persistent dyspnoea following COVID-19. Methods 49 participants with mild-to-critical COVID-19 were included in this cross-sectional study 4 months after acute illness. Between-group comparisons were made in those with and without persistent dyspnoea (defined as modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea score ≥1). Participants completed standardised dyspnoea and mental health symptom questionnaires, pulmonary function tests, and incremental cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Results Exertional dyspnoea intensity and unpleasantness were increased in the dyspnoea group. The dyspnoea group described dyspnoea qualities of suffocating and tightness at peak exercise (p<0.05). Ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide ( V ʹ E / V ʹ CO 2 ) nadir was higher (32±5 versus 28±3, p<0.001) and anaerobic threshold was lower (41±12 versus 49±11% predicted maximum oxygen uptake, p=0.04) in the dyspnoea group, indicating ventilatory inefficiency and deconditioning in this group. The dyspnoea group experienced greater symptoms of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress (all p<0.05). A subset of participants demonstrated gas-exchange and breathing pattern abnormalities suggestive of dysfunctional breathing. Conclusions People with persistent dyspnoea following COVID-19 experience a specific dyspnoea quality phenotype. Dyspnoea post-COVID-19 is related to abnormal pulmonary gas exchange and deconditioning and is linked to increased symptoms of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress.
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".