Menthol for exertional dyspnoea relief in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Menthol inhalation relieves dyspnoea during loaded breathing in COPD and during exercise in healthy adults, respectively. We still do not know if menthol can also improve exertional dyspnoea in COPD. Sixteen COPD patients (56%male, 68±7yrs, FEV1 47±17%predicted) performed 2 constant-load cycle exercise tests (74±7%peak power) to exhaustion while inhaling menthol or placebo (strawberry) in random order on separate days. Dyspnoea was serially assessed using the 0-10 Borg scale. Participants were asked in which test their airflow felt easier on inspiration. Dyspnoea ratings were lower with menthol vs. placebo over exercise time (Fig 1A; p=0.007). Iso-time dyspnoea was 1.0±2.3 Borg units lower with menthol (p=0.10; Fig 1B), which correlated with changes in endurance time (r=-0.69, p=0.003; Fig 1C). However, there was no effect of menthol on ventilation over time (p=0.98), and exercise endurance was not different between conditions (Δ0.1±1.4min with menthol, p=0.85; Fig 1D). 81% reported higher perceived inspiratory airflow with menthol. While improvements in iso-time dyspnoea were variable and not statistically significant, the average change attained the minimal clinically important difference of 1 Borg unit and was associated with improved exercise tolerance. In selected COPD patients, menthol inhalation may therefore be useful for exertional dyspnoea management. Future work should investigate if menthol can enhance the benefits of an exercise rehabilitation program. erj;64/suppl_68/OA1881/F1 F1 F1
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".