Cardiorespiratory fitness in COPD and HF from the Fitness Registry and the Importance of Exercise: a National Database
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims To better characterize functional consequences of the presence of COPD on cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with HF. Methods and results Patients with any clinical indication for cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) were included in the international FRIEND registry. Diagnosis of COPD was confirmed by a ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 s and forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) < 0.70. HF was diagnosed in the presence of symptoms and signs of HF. A total of 10 957 patients were divided into four groups: patients without HF or COPD (n = 8963), patients with HF (n = 852) or COPD (n = 991) alone, and patients with both HF and COPD (n = 151). Maximal workload was the lowest in patients with both HF and COPD [78.09 (95% CI: 72.92, 83.64 watts)], and all pairwise comparisons with adjusted P < 0.05 between groups were statistically significant. Patients with both HF and COPD yielded the lowest PETCO2 values [31.80 (95% CI: 31.00, 32.60)] mmHg and exhibited a higher VE/VCO2 slope compared with HF (36.73 (95% CI: 35.78, 37.68) vs. 33.91 (95% CI: 33.50, 34.33 units, P < 0.0001). Peak VO2 was the lowest with concomitant HF and COPD 19.93 (95% CI: 18.60, 21.27) mL/kg/min and was significantly different compared with all other groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion Patients referred for CPET with COPD and concomitant HF exhibit a profound impairment in CRF compared with patients with COPD or HF alone. Early identification of pulmonary obstruction in patients with HF by more frequent usage of pulmonary function testing may contribute to providing better treatment for both COPD and HF in these high-risk individuals.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it