Pulmonary rehabilitation and loneliness in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Loneliness is prevalent in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study examined if a measure of loneliness changes following pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).METHODS: In this interventional study, participants were enrolled in a 4-5-week (inpatient) or 10-week (out-patient or virtual) PR program. The primary outcome was loneliness measured using the University of California, Los Angeles-Loneliness Scale (UCLA-LS). Repeated measures (ANOVA) were used to detect changes over time (pre-post PR) for all outcomes.RESULTS: A total of 46 individuals with COPD were included. A small decrease in loneliness levels post-PR [UCLA-LS: MD = 3-point, p = 0.019, ES = 0.36] was noted. This effect was modulated after controlling for the effect of age and PR setting [UCLA-LS: MD = 3-point, p = 0.934]. Improvements in depression [PHQ-9: Mean difference (MD) = 1.6-point, p = 0.004, ES = 0.45], anxiety [GAD-7: MD = 1.6-point, p = 0.001, ES = 0.50] and health status [CRQ-Total: MD = 0.9-point, p < 0.001, ES = 1.0] were also noted. At baseline and post-PR, loneliness was associated with age [r = −0.38, p = 0.009].CONCLUSION: This study highlights the opportunity to identify additional interventions during PR that could target loneliness.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".