Effect of a pulmonary rehabilitation program combined with cognitive training on exercise tolerance and cognitive functions among Tunisian male patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment has been well described in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in addition to cardiorespiratory disability. To reduce this impairment, researchers have recommended the use of single or combined exercise training. However, the combined effect of cognitive training (CT) and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) program on selective cognitive abilities in patients with COPD has not been fully evaluated. Therefore, we aimed to assess the impact of PR combined with CT on 6 minutes walking test (6MWT) and cognitive parameters in Tunisian males' patients with COPD. METHODS: = 18, age = 65.3 ± 3.2). The intervention group underwent PR combined with CT, and the control group underwent only PR, three times per week for 3 months. The primary outcomes were 6MWT (6 minutes walking test -6MWT-parameters) and cognitive performance, as evaluated by Montreal cognitive assessments (MOCA) and P300 test. Secondary outcomes were patient's characteristics and spirometric data. These tests were measured at baseline and after 3 months of training programs. RESULTS: < .001) in cognitive performance including MOCA score and P300 test latency in three midline electrodes. However, the improvement in cognitive performance was significantly greater in the PR+CT group than the PR group. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, although PR alone improves 6MWT parameters and cognitive function, the addition of CT to PR is more effective in improving cognitive abilities in patients with COPD. This combined approach may provide clinicians with a complementary therapeutic option for improving cognitive abilities in 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".