Non-invasive neuromodulation for alleviating dyspnoea: protocol for a feasibility sham-controlled randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Dyspnoea affects 10% of the general population, and 12% of hospitalised patients report experiencing dyspnoea at rest. It is a common and distressing symptom experienced by people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Neuromodulation, which uses electrical stimulation to modulate neural pathways, is a validated clinical procedure offering a potential therapeutic approach. We speculate that non-invasive transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) and trigeminal transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) could improve dyspnoea management by targeting relevant neural circuits. Methods and analysis We will conduct a feasibility cross-over trial in people with severe COPD and significant exertional dyspnoea referred for pulmonary rehabilitation. Patients will be recruited following the prerehabilitation assessment visit comprising a clinical evaluation and a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing on ergocycle. Subsequently, two study visits will be conducted within 2 weeks apart from each other. Eight participants will perform a submaximal constant work rate at 80% workload of the VO2 max, either with cervical tVNS (n=4) or trigeminal TENS (n=4). In a cross-over design, both patient groups will undergo sham and active treatment of the neuromodulation technique in a randomly assigned order. The main outcome will be feasibility, assessed by the percentage of patients who attend all visits and complete all tests. Secondary outcomes include other feasibility endpoints, the acceptability and suitability of the interventions (including an evaluation of sham as an exploratory outcome), and the incidence of adverse or undesirable events related to the procedures. Exploratory outcomes include changes in dyspnoea symptoms, measured using standardised questionnaires, such as Borg scale and the Visual Analogue Scale. Ethics and dissemination The protocol is approved by the institutional research ethics committee of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux (CIUSSS) de l’Estrie—CHUS, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada (#2025-5604) and follows 2013 Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines. Results will be communicated in international meetings and submitted to peer-reviewed journals with respect to the 2010 CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for feasibility studies. Trial registration number NCT06985628 .
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 | 0.040 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.016 |
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".