Feasibility of a Home-Based Cognitive-Physical Exercise Program in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Protocol for a Feasibility and Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive condition associated with physical and cognitive impairments contributing to difficulty in performing activities of daily living (ADLs) that require dual tasking (eg, walking and talking). Despite evidence showing that cognitive decline occurs among patients with COPD and may contribute to functional limitations and decreased health-related quality of life (HRQL), pulmonary rehabilitation continues to focus mainly on physical training (ie, aerobic and strength exercises). An integrated cognitive and physical training program compared to physical training alone may be more effective in increasing dual-tasking ability among people living with COPD, leading to greater improvements in performance of ADLs and HRQL. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to evaluate the feasibility of an 8-week randomized controlled trial of home-based, cognitive-physical training versus physical training for patients with moderate to severe COPD and derive preliminary estimates of cognitive-physical training intervention efficacy on measures of physical and cognitive function, dual task performance, ADLs, and HRQL. METHODS: A total of 24 participants with moderate to severe COPD will be recruited and randomized into cognitive-physical training or physical training. All participants will be prescribed an individualized home physical exercise program comprising 5 days of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (30-50 minutes/session) and 2 days of whole-body strength training per week. The cognitive-physical training group will also perform cognitive training for approximately 60 minutes, 5 days per week via the BrainHQ platform (Posit Science Corporation). Participants will meet once weekly with an exercise professional (via videoconference) who will provide support by reviewing the progression of their training and addressing any queries. Feasibility will be assessed through the recruitment rate, program adherence, satisfaction, attrition, and safety. The intervention efficacy regarding dual task performance, physical function, ADLs, and HRQL will be evaluated at baseline and at 4 and 8 weeks. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize intervention feasibility. Paired 2-tailed t tests and 2-tailed t tests will be used to compare the changes in the outcome measures over the 8-week study period within and between the 2 randomized groups, respectively. RESULTS: Enrollment started in January 2022. It is estimated that the enrollment period will be 24 months long, with data collection to be completed by December 2023. CONCLUSIONS: A supervised home-based cognitive-physical training program may be an accessible intervention to improve dual-tasking ability in people living with COPD. Evaluating the feasibility and effect estimates is a critical first step to inform future clinical trials evaluating this approach and its effects on physical and cognitive function, ADL performance, and HRQL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05140226; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05140226. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48666.
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 | 0.031 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.009 |
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".