Ultrasound Evaluation of the Quadriceps Muscle Contractile Index in Patients with Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Relationships with Clinical Symptoms, Disease Severity and Diaphragm Contractility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anne-Catherine Maynard-Paquette,1 Claude Poirier,2 Carl Chartrand-Lefebvre,3,4 Bruno-Pierre Dubé2,5 1Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 2Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Department of Medicine, Respiratory Medicine Division, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 3Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Department of Radiology, Montréal, Québec, Canada; 4Research Center of the CHUM (CRCHUM) – Imaging and Engineering Axis, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 5Research Center of the CHUM (CRCHUM) - Health Innovation and Evaluation Hub, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaCorrespondence: Bruno-Pierre DubéCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 850 Rue St-Denis, Montréal, Qc H2X0A9, CanadaTel +1 514 890-8000Email bruno-pierre.dube@umontreal.caRationale: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with changes in the composition and function of peripheral and respiratory muscles, which can negatively impact quality of life. Ultrasonography can provide a non-invasive evaluation of the integrity of both peripheral muscles and diaphragm, but its use in patients with COPD is still being investigated. We aimed at evaluating the relationship between quadriceps size, using ultrasonography and symptoms, lung function and diaphragm contractility in a cohort of patients with COPD.Methods: COPD patients were prospectively recruited and ultrasonography of the dominant quadriceps and of the diaphragm was performed. Quadriceps size was evaluated using three measurements: 1) cross-sectional area of the rectus femoris (Qcsa), 2) thickness (Qthick) and 3) contractile index (Qci), defined as the ratio of quadriceps thickness/total anterior thigh thickness. Diaphragm contractility was evaluated using thickening fraction (TFdi). Clinical characteristics and number of moderate-to-severe exacerbations in the previous year were retrieved from medical files. Dyspnea (mMRC scale) and disease impact on health status (COPD Assessment Test (CAT)) were measured at inclusion. Fat-free mass index (FFMI) was assessed using bioelectrical impedance.Results: Forty patients were recruited (20 males, mean age and FEV1 66±6 years and 49±17%predicted, respectively). Mean Qcsa, Qthick and Qci were 336±145 mm2, 1.55±0.53 cm and 64±16%, respectively, and mean TFdi was 91±36%. Qci was significantly correlated with FFMI (rho=0.59, p=0.001), TFdi (rho=0.41, p=0.008), FEV1 (rho=0.43, p=0.001) but not with age (rho=0.18, p=0.28). Qci was significantly correlated to CAT score (rho=−0.47, p=0.002), even when controlled for FEV1, and was lower in patients with an mMRC score ≥2 (55±15 vs 70±14%, p=0.002). Qcsa and Qci were significantly lower in patients with frequent exacerbations. In a multiple linear regression analysis that included age, gender, FFMI, FEV1 and TFdi, only FFMI and TFdi were found to be significantly related to lower Qci values.Conclusion: In patients with COPD, ultrasound evaluation of the quadriceps contractile index is feasible and related to disease severity, clinical symptoms, exacerbation history and diaphragm contractility. As such, it may provide a novel tool for the evaluation of the severity and burden of the disease in this population. Further studies are required to better delineate its potential role as a prognostic marker in this population.Keywords: COPD, ultrasound, quadriceps, diaphragm, contractile index
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".