Is This Really a New START in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
on average, 28%) and that the decrease in IC correlated with reductions in airway and alveolar PCO 2 .Such changes during voluntary hyperventilation are known to induce a small degree of reflex bronchoconstriction, indicating that the decrease in IC resulted from DH rather than inspiratory braking.Negation of this effect necessitates a more complex protocol that controls the PCO 2 in the lungs.This has been achieved in experimental settings using partial rebreathing of exhaled air from a rebreathing bag or addition of carbon dioxide gas into the breathing circuit ( 14).Although such techniques have been employed in research settings, they do not lend themselves to a protocol for MPT that is simple, short, and nonburdensome yet still yields meaningful results.In summary, this letter details a short, simple, comfortable protocol for the evaluation of DH using MPT.The protocol yields three repeated measures in 8-12 minutes and is suitable to quantify DH in patients with COPD of all stages of severity.Having established a standard technique that induces DH using a "fixed" stimulus, we can look forward to further validation of the method and future research studies in which data can be cross-compared and compared before versus after treatment interventions.For example, this protocol could be especially valuable as a repeated measure in clinical trials of therapeutic interventions that are designed to reduce DH in patients with obstructive pulmonary disease.Because the reduction of static hyperinflation and DH are considered important in improving exercise performance in COPD, a standardized method of measurement will be necessary before it can be considered as a routine pulmonary function test.Future research can then focus on strengthening the evidence base linking DH to other important clinical manifestations of 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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.074 | 0.056 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
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".