Beyond pulmonary rehabilitation: can the PICk UP programme fill the gap? A randomised trial in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a fundamental intervention to manage COPD, however, maintaining its benefits is challenging. Engaging in physical activity might help to prolong PR benefits. This study assessed the efficacy and effectiveness of a personalised community-based physical activity programme to sustain physical activity and other health-related PR benefits, in people with COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicentre, assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial. Following 12-weeks of PR, people with COPD were assigned to a six-months personalised community-based physical activity programme (experimental group), or to standard care (control group). Physical activity was assessed via: time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activities per day (primary outcome measure), steps/day and the brief physical activity assessment tool. Secondary outcomes included sedentary behaviour, functional status, peripheral muscle strength, balance, symptoms, emotional state, health-related quality of life, exacerbations and healthcare utilization. Assessments were performed immediately post-PR and after three- and six-months. Efficacy and effectiveness were evaluated using intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis with linear mixed models. RESULTS: < 0.05) between groups at the six-month follow-up. In the remaining outcomes there were no differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The community-based physical activity programme resulted in better physical activity levels and sit-to-stand performance, six-months after completing PR, in COPD. No additional benefits were observed for other secondary outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".