Virtual pulmonary rehabilitation approaches in patients with post COVID syndrome: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The characteristics of optimal virtual pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for individuals with post-COVID syndrome (PCS) have not been identified. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and satisfaction associated with a virtual PR program with the exercise component delivered through group or self-directed sessions. Methods Adults with PCS-respiratory symptoms were randomly assigned to the video conference (PRVC) or self-directed (PRSD) group and completed an exercise program (aerobic, strengthening, and breathing exercises) three times/week for eight weeks. PRVC sessions were led by a physiotherapist via Zoom, whereas the PRSD group exercised individually following a pre-recorded video. Both groups received personalized exercise recommendations, education related to the condition, and a weekly follow up call. Satisfaction was assessed through a patient survey. Lung function, dyspnea, fatigue, sit-to-stand capacity, health-related quality of life, and participation were assessed pre- and post-PR. Results Fourteen PCS individuals (49 ± 9 years, 86% females) completed 83% of the sessions. All participants were satisfied with information provided by the therapist and frequency of data submission, whereas most were satisfied with the frequency and duration of exercise sessions (88% in PRVC and 83% in PRSD). A higher proportion of participants in the PRVC (88%) were satisfied with the level of difficulty of exercises compared with the PRSD (67%), and 84% of the sample reported a positive impact of the program on their health. No adverse events were reported. Significant changes in sit-to-stand capacity (p = 0.012, Cohen’s r = 0.67) and questions related to fatigue (p = 0.027, Cohen’s r = 0.58), neurocognitive (p = 0.045, Cohen’s r = 0.53), and autonomic (p = 0.024, Cohen’s r = 0.60) domains of the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire short-form were also found between groups. Conclusion Virtual PR with exercises delivered via video conference or pre-recorded video were feasible, safe, and well-received by individuals with PCS. Trial registration NCT05003271 (first posted: 12/08/2021).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".