Analysis of Respiratory Muscle Strength Training in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory muscle weakness is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients. Respiratory muscle strength training (RMST) has emerged as a potential therapeutic approach to mitigate respiratory muscle weakness in ALS. Still, its efficacy and safety remain unclear due to conflicting evidence and methodological heterogeneity in existing studies. A systematic review was conducted across three databases (PubMed (United States National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), and Cochrane Library (Cochrane, Alberta, Canada)) following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to assess the effectiveness of RMST in ALS patients. Eligible studies included comparative studies for RMST, focusing on outcomes such as maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP), maximum expiratory pressure (MEP), forced vital capacity (FVC), and ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R). Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This study included six studies, including 183 patients with a mean age of 58.0 years (49.6 to 63.2) and a mean follow-up time of 21.2 weeks (eight to 52). The average mean difference for ALSFRS-R (three studies), MIP (three studies), MEP (three studies), and FVC (two studies) were 2.062 (0.04 to 5.3), 2.285 (-8.145 to 10.8), 19.435 (10.86 to 21.7), and 7.23 (3.6 to 10.86), respectively. Complications related to RMST were poorly reported across studies. Secondary outcomes, such as depression scores, blood oxygen levels, and heart rate variability, showed promising trends but lacked consistency. Despite positive findings on respiratory muscle strength, RMST's efficacy in ALS management remains inconclusive. Challenges include methodological heterogeneity, limited sample sizes, and inadequate reporting of complications. Future research should focus on standardized protocols, larger sample sizes, longer follow-ups, and comprehensive assessment of adverse effects to clarify the role of RMST in ALS treatment.
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 | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".