Metabolic and ventilatory constraints in long COVID individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long COVID is characterized by persistent symptoms and physiological impairments beyond acute infection. Oxygen consumption (VO₂) and ventilatory efficiency, key indicators of cardiorespiratory fitness, are commonly diminished in this population, contributing to exercise intolerance. This study compared cardiorespiratory patterns and exercise capacity among individuals with Long COVID (LCG), those with resolved symptoms (Short COVID; SCG), and healthy controls (CG). The secondary objective was to assess longitudinal changes over six months. Cross-sectional comparisons at baseline addressed the primary objective, while the longitudinal component explored on changes over time. Participants included 94 in the LCG, 100 in the SCG, and 70 in the CG. All performed a 6-minute walk test (6MWT) during which peak oxygen uptake (VO₂ peak ), minute ventilation (VE), and VE/VCO₂ (ratio of VE to carbon dioxide output, reflecting ventilatory efficiency) were continuously measured using the Metamax 3B system. Baseline differences were assessed by one-way ANOVA, and longitudinal changes by generalized estimating equations. At baseline, VO₂ peak was significantly reduced in the LCG (70.1 % predicted) versus SCG (80.6 %) and CG (84.6 %) (p = 0.001). VE/VCO₂ was elevated in the LCG (30.2 ± 4.2) compared to SCG (27.9 ± 2.8) and CG (28.7 ± 3.3) (p < .001). The 6MWT distance was also lower in the LCG (484 ± 127 m) than SCG (607 ± 69.1 m) and CG (571 ± 89.6 m) (p < .001). No statistically significant Group × Time interaction emerged between the groups. Individuals with Long COVID exhibited persistent ventilatory inefficiency and reduced exercise capacity, with impairments persisting over six months, underscoring the need for targeted rehabilitation. Short abstract Individuals with Long COVID exhibit reduced exercise capacity and persistent ventilatory inefficiency compared to Short COVID and control groups. At baseline and over six months, VO₂, VE/VCO₂, and 6MWT distances were significantly impaired, highlighting the need for targeted rehabilitation strategies to address ongoing physiological limitations in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".