The Responsiveness of Exercise Tests in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COPD is characterized by reduced exercise tolerance, and improving physical performance is an important therapeutic goal. A variety of exercise tests are commonly used to assess exercise tolerance, including laboratory and field-based tests. The responsiveness of these various tests to common COPD interventions is yet to be compared, but the results may inform test selection in clinical and research settings. RESEARCH QUESTION: What exercise test possesses the greatest sensitivity to change from before to after intervention in patients with COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-four patients with symptomatic COPD were recruited and randomized (2:1:1) to 6 weeks of long-acting muscarinic antagonist, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), or usual care. Before and after intervention, participants performed an incremental cycle exercise test and constant work rate cycle test (CWRCT), incremental shuttle walk test and endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT), 6-min walk test, and 4-m gait speed test. RESULTS: , 50.6 ± 16.8% predicted) completed the study. Significant improvements in the incremental cycle exercise test, CWRCT, incremental cycle exercise test, ESWT, and 6-min walk test results were observed after PR (P < .05), with the greatest improvements seen in the constant work rate protocols (percentages change: CWRCT, 42%; ESWT, 41%). INTERPRETATION: The ESWT and CWRCT seemed to be the most responsive exercise test protocols to long-acting muscarinic antagonist and PR therapy. The magnitude of change was much greater after a program of rehabilitation compared with bronchodilator therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): No. 64759523; URL: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN64759523.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".