Pulmonary rehabilitation is effective on exercise tolerance and mobility in frail ILD patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interstitial lung diseases (ILD) are devastating diseases that leads to significant physical and functional impairments leading to frailty syndrome. Although pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is feasible in this population, its benefits on exercise tolerance and functional mobility in regard to frailty status remain unknow. We thus aimed to assess the effect of PR on exercise tolerance and mobility in ILD participants, according to their frailty status. Exercise capacity on 6-minute walking test (6MWT) and 1-minute sit-to stand test (1STS) and functional mobility on Short physical performance battery test (SPPB) have been measured in 27 patients with ILD before and after a 8-weeks of PR program. Pre-frailty and frailty were considered from a score ≤ 10 and 8/10 on the SPPB score, respectively. At inclusion 14, 11 and 2/27 of participants were non-frail, pre-frail and frail, respectively. At the end of PR, 11, 11 and 0/22 participants were non-frail, pre-frail and frail, respectively. Responsiveness to PR (Δ Post-Baseline Estimates (95%CI)) according to frailty status is detailed in the figure below. Conclusion: PR is effective to improve exercise tolerance and functional mobility in ILD patients. PR seems to be a promising strategy to improve frailty status.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".