Effectiveness of repeated pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves physical and psychological functioning of COPD patients. However, these benefits tend to diminish over time after completion of PR and patients may return for repeated PR program. Data on effectiveness of repeated PR on clinical outcome measures are scarce. Methods: Data from COPD patients who underwent two PR programs between January 2005 and September 2022 at Ciro in Horn, The Netherlands were analyzed. At the start and end of each PR program, spirometry, BMI, mMRC, SGRQ, CAT, HADS, 6MWD and Canadian occupational performance measure (COPM) outcomes were collected. Results: Of the 769 COPD patients (58% men; age at 1st PR: 62.9±8.5 years [%FEV1 predicted 43.3±16.7]; age at 2nd PR: 65.2±8.5 years [%FEV1 predicted: 39.3±16.9]) that underwent two PR programs, CAT, SGRQ, anxiety, depression, 6MWD and COPM measures significantly improved during 1st and 2nd PR (p<0.05). Improvements in outcomes were also comparable between the 1st and 2nd PR: SGRQ (-3.0±13.3 vs. -3.9±9.8; p=0.522), anxiety (-1.5±3.6 vs. -1.5±3.5; p= 0.917), depression (-1.7±3.8 vs. -1.4±3.5 ; p= 0.296), CAT (-3.8±5.7 vs. -2.7±7.0; p=0.132), COPM performance score ( 2.3±1.9 vs 2.3±1.9; p= 0.744) and COPM satisfaction score (3.1±2.4 vs2.9±2.3; p= 0.117), but not for 6MWD (59.5±71.1 vs 44.4±64.6; p<0.001), which was significantly higher following the 1st PR. Conclusion: A repeated PR program about 2.2 years after the 1st PR program results in similar improvements for patient-relevant outcomes among patients with COPD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".