Effects of one-leg exercises in rehabilitation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience little or no increase in VO 2peak levels with pulmonary rehabilitation because their exercise capabilities are too respiratory-limited to reach an intensity high enough for physiological training.This study aims to investigate the effects of one-leg exercises on the cardiopulmonary system and whether they can find a place in pulmonary rehabilitation for individuals with COPD.METHODS: Six major databases were searched up to December 2021 without imposing restrictions on publication date, gender, or age.Citations were accepted if they discussed one-leg strengthening or aerobic exercises in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.After reading the full texts, nine papers met the inclusion criteria and were included.Eight of these studies were randomized controlled studies, and one was a prospective cohort study. RESULTS:In total, 169 subjects including healthy participants were observed.There is insufficient evidence to state that one-leg exercises have the potential to increase VO 2peak levels in patients with COPD more than traditional pulmonary rehabilitation options.Perceived dyspnea severity is lower, and leg fatigue is higher in one-leg exercises compared to two-leg exercises.The total work done by individuals with COPD during one-leg exercises was found to be close to that of healthy individuals. CONCLUSIONS:We think that the possible potential of one-leg exercises focusing on a smaller muscle group can eliminate exercise-induced respiratory and cardiac stress and, therefore, may be included in pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with COPD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".