Effect of a 4-week pulmonary telerehabilitation program for people with respiratory post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 – A randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate a 4-week pulmonary telerehabilitation (PTR) program compared to usual care for people with persistent respiratory post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC).Methods A multi-centre randomised controlled trial with remote assessment and assessor blinding. Participants were randomised 1:1 to 4-weeks, twice-weekly PTR or usual care (Control Group (CG)). PTR exercise intensity was titrated based on fatigue and dyspnoea. After the control period, participants in CG could cross-over into PTR to form a combined group (PTR-X). Primary outcome: 1-minute sit-to-stand test (1-minSTST). Secondary outcomes: 5-repetition sit-to-stand test; Montreal Cognitive Assessment blind-version; COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale; COPD Assessment Test; 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Fatigue Severity Scale; Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, all assessed at baseline and following intervention or control periods. Data were analysed using a linear mixed effects model.Results Of 50 participants recruited, 39 completed the study (PTR group n = 14, CG n = 25). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in any outcomes. For the PTR-X group (n = 27) there was a statistically significant within-group improvement in 1-minSTST (2.4 repetitions, 95%CI 0.6–4.2).Conclusions A 4-week (8 session) PTR intervention for respiratory PASC showed no significant between-groups differences suggesting that longer PTR programs or alternative interventions should be evaluated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".