Effect of adding cognitive training to pulmonary rehabilitation program in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases: a randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: 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 evaluated yet.The main aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of PR combined with CT on cardiorespiratory and cognitive parameters in patients with COPD. Methods: Thirty-nine patients with COPD were assigned to an intervention group (n= 21, age= 65.3± 2.79) and a control group (n=18, age=65.3 ±3.2). The intervention group underwent PR combined with CT and the control group underwent only PR, 3 times per week during 3 months. Spirometry, 6-minute walking tests (6MWT) and cognitive performances [Montreal cognitive assessments (MOCA) and P300 test] were evaluated. Measures were taken at baseline and after 3-months of training programs. Results: We showed a significant improvement of the 6MWT distance after the rehabilitation period in both groups (P< 0.001). Both groups showed a significant improvement (P< 0.001) in cognitive performance (score MOCA and P300 test) latency in three midlines electrodes. However, these improvements in cognitive performances were greater in the group that combined PR and CT. Conclusion: The PR improves cardio respiratory and cognitive parameters however the use of CT added to PR is more effective in improving cognitive abilities than PR alone for COPD patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".