MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Normative Reference Equations for Breathlessness Intensity During Incremental Cardiopulmonary Cycle Exercise Testing

2023· article· en· W4386734684 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Magnus Ekström, Pei Zhi Li, Hayley Lewthwaite, Jean Bourbeau, Wan C. Tan, Linus Schiöler, Andrew R. Brotto, Michael K. Stickland, Dennis Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPfizerVetenskapsrådetMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityPfizer CanadaAstraZeneca CanadaReseau canadien de recherche respiratoireGlaxoSmithKlineAstraZenecaQueen's University
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRespiratory minute volumeBody mass indexStatisticVentilation (architecture)VO2 maxStandard errorDemographyStatisticsHeart rateInternal medicineMathematicsRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is the gold standard to evaluate exertional breathlessness, a common and disabling symptom. However, the interpretation of breathlessness responses to CPET is limited by a scarcity of normative data. Objectives We aimed to develop normative reference equations for breathlessness intensity (Borg 0–10 category ratio) response in men and women aged ⩾40 years during CPET, in relation to power output (watts), oxygen uptake, and minute ventilation. Methods Analysis of ostensibly healthy people aged ⩾40 years undergoing symptom-limited incremental cycle CPET (10 W/min) in the CanCOLD (Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease) study. Participants had smoking histories <5 pack-years and normal lung function and exercise capacity. The probability of each Borg 0–10 category ratio breathlessness intensity rating by power output, oxygen uptake, and minute ventilation (as an absolute or a relative value [percentage of predicted maximum]) was predicted using ordinal multinomial logistic regression. Model performance was evaluated by fit, calibration, and discrimination (C statistic) and externally validated in an independent sample (n = 86) of healthy Canadian adults. Results We included 156 participants (43% women) from CanCOLD; the mean age was 65 (range, 42–91) years, and the mean body mass index was 26.3 (standard deviation, 3.8) kg/m2. Reference equations were developed for women and men separately, accounting for age and/or body mass. Model performance was high across all equations, including in the validation sample (C statistic for men = 0.81–0.92, C statistic for women = 0.81–0.96). Conclusions Normative reference equations are provided to compare exertional breathlessness intensity ratings among individuals or groups and to identify and quantify abnormal breathlessness responses (scores greater than the upper limit of normal) during CPET.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207