Associations of cognitive and quadriceps function in persons with COPD: a preliminary cross-sectional analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive and quadriceps dysfunction are highly prevalent in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and associated with higher mortality. Quadriceps strength is positively associated with cognitive function in healthy adults. The relationship between cognitive and quadriceps function in persons with COPD is unknown. Aims: To investigate associations between cognitive and quadriceps function in persons with COPD. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of 44 persons with stable COPD (75±8 years; 50% male). Cognitive function was assessed with the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA, screening tool mild cognitive impairment) and the trail making test (TMT) A (visual scanning, visuomotor speed) and B (cognitive flexibility, visual scanning, visuomotor speed). Quadriceps strength (1-RM) and endurance (repetitions x workload (45% 1-RM)) were measured with a computerized dynamometer, and quadriceps power during the five-times sit-to-stand (5STS) and stair climbing power test (SCPT) was calculated. Results: TMT A was negatively associated with SCPT and 5STS (Fig. 1D/E) and TMT B was negatively associated with quadriceps strength (Fig. 1F). The MoCA score was not associated with quadriceps function. Conclusion: Better quadriceps function may be related with better cognitive function in persons with COPD. Future research should further investigate this muscle-brain relationship in persons with COPD. erj;66/suppl_69/PA4899/F1 F1 F1
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".