Sedentary patients with COPD: differences by physical activity level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sedentary behaviour (SB) and low physical activity (PA) are independently associated with worse health outcomes in COPD. Population studies show better outcomes for physically active than inactive sedentary people; factors distinguishing active/inactive sedentary COPD patients are unclear. This cross-sectional study explored differences between these groups and identified PA predictors. Categories from Bakrania et al.1 were used: high SB ≥8.5h/day; sufficient PA ≥5000 steps/day (Actigraph GT3X+). Differences in age, sex, comorbidities, FEV1, GOLD ABE, symptoms (mMRC; CAT), Exercise Motivations Inventory 2 and functional capacity (6MWD) were analysed using (non-)parametric tests and PA predictors by logistic regression. 92 patients were included (67±8yrs; 84% male; 47% GOLD-B; 6MWD 427±98m; 4486[2825–6925] steps/day; 11[9–12] h/day SB). 88% had high SB: 54% were inactive (couch potatoes), 46% were active (sedentary exercisers). Sedentary exercisers were younger (65±7/70±7yrs, p<.001), had fewer symptoms(mMRC≥2:37%/73%, p=.003; CAT≥10:57%/79%, p=.032), higher lung function(FEV1 1.4±0.5/1.2±0.5L, p=.014) and functional capacity (6MWD 480±79/383±98m, p<.001) than couch potatoes. No other differences were found. In high-SB patients, 6MWD significantly predicted sufficient PA(R²Nagelkerke=.543, R²Cox-Snell=.405; p<.001), adjusting for age(OR=0.901; 95%CI 0.822–0.987) and daylight time(OR=1.662; 95%CI 1.144–2.413). The odds of being active increased by 1.5% per additional 6MWD-meter(OR=1.015; 95%CI 1.007–1.024). High SB patients are more likely to be active if younger, less symptomatic, and with better functional capacity, but only functional capacity predicts sufficient PA. 1Brakania et al. BMC Public Health 16,25 (2015)
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".