The effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on inflammatory biomarkers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common, preventable lung disease which affects more than 300 million people worldwide. People with COPD have elevated levels of inflammatory biomarkers, which are linked to physiological alterations in the respiratory system and extrapulmonary manifestations. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is one of the strategies used in the management of individuals with COPD irrespective of severity, however its effect on systemic inflammation is poorly understood. We report the protocol of a systematic review on the effects of PR on systemic inflammation in patients with COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the search terms "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease", "pulmonary rehabilitation", and "inflammatory biomarkers" and their synonyms, five databases (AMED, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Pubmed), EMBASE) will be searched from their inception to identify primary literature evaluating the effects of PR on systemic inflammation. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility using the Covidence web-based software. Eligible studies must be published in a peer-reviewed journal and include: (1) participants with COPD undergoing PR with an exercise component of at least 4 weeks in length and (2) a measure of systemic inflammation (e.g., bloodwork or sputum sample) as an outcome of interest. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools (ROB2 and ROBINS-I) and will rate the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. This protocol has followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines and is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review will summarize the status of the evidence highlighting the effect of PR on systemic inflammation. A manuscript will be drafted and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and shared at conferences.
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 | 0.069 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.005 |
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".