MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Respiratory Muscle Structure and Function and Association With Patient Reported Outcome Measures and Physical Function Post-transplant

2025· article· en· W4410273689 on OpenAlexaff
Rogih Riad Andrawes, Catherine A. Bellissimo, Aymen Al-Timimi, Joyce Wu, Ahmad Ibrahim, Megha Ibrahim Masthan, Vanessa Silano, Ewan C. Goligher, Shiphra Ginsburg, Lisa Wickerson, S. Keshavjee, Chung‐Wai Chow, Darlene Reid, Dmitry Rozenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOutcome (game theory)Association (psychology)Respiratory systemPatient-reported outcomeIntensive care medicineLung functionPhysical therapyInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Lung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Lung transplantation (LTx) is a life-saving procedure with beneficial effects on health-related quality of life (HRQL) and exercise capacity. Respiratory muscle changes contribute to functional limitations pre-LTx, but their association with post-LTx respiratory symptoms, HRQL, and physical function have not been well characterized. This study aims to: 1) assess differences in respiratory muscle structure and function, HRQL, and physical function in LTx recipients compared to age and sex-matched LTx candidates; 2) evaluate the relationship between respiratory muscle function and post-LTx outcomes. Methods: Prospective, single-center cross-sectional study of adult bilateral LTx recipients (≥ 3 months post-LTx) with prior diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial lung disease (ILD), and pre-LTx participants matched for age, sex, and lung disease. Ultrasound of the diaphragm (M-mode, 5-12 Hz) and sternocleidomastoid (SCM), physical function (handgrip and neck flexion strength, short physical performance battery [SPPB] and six-minute walk distance [6MWD]), respiratory symptoms and HRQL (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and Short-Form 36 [SF-36]) were evaluated. Diaphragm thickening fraction (TF) was measured during normal (TFdi-tidal) and maximal breathing (TFdi-max) with diaphragm force reserve ratio (1-[TFdi-tidal/TFdi-max]) calculated. SCM TF was also measured at maximal inspiration. Results: 30 LTx recipients (64±8 years, 67% ILD, 33% COPD, 67% male; median 9 months post-LTx) and 10 pre-LTx controls (64±5 years, 60% ILD, 40% COPD, 30% male) were evaluated. Post-LTx participants had greater diaphragm function with a lower resting diaphragm TF, greater maximal diaphragm TF, and a higher diaphragm force reserve ratio than pre-LTx participants (Table 1). Results suggest that SCM TF during maximal inspiration may be higher in post-LTx participants (0.60 ± 0.31 vs 0.46 ± 0.24, p=0.15). HRQL, respiratory symptoms, maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), and 6MWD were better in LTx recipients compared to candidates (Table 1). In LTx recipients, diaphragm force reserve ratio had a strong correlation with lower respiratory symptom severity (SGRQ Symptoms [r=-0.62, p=0.0004]) and greater inspiratory muscle strength (MIP [r=0.38, p=0.04]). SCM TF had a stronger correlation with SGRQ Total Score (r=-0.42, p=0.03), SF-36 PCS (r=0.44, p=0.02), and SPPB (r=0.58, p=0.002), but not 6MWD (r=0.18, p=0.37). Conclusion: Preliminary findings highlight that diaphragm function is greater in LTx recipients than candidates and respiratory muscle function is associated with improved respiratory symptoms and HRQL. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to sex imbalances between groups. This study may guide the implementation of rehabilitation interventions like inspiratory muscle training to enhance outcomes post-LTx.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207