Anthropometric, clinical and lifestyle determinants of exercise energy expenditure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total body fat and muscle mass depletion has been reported in some patients with COPD. This study used simple anthropometric measurements to compare the body composition of patients with moderate-severe COPD to that of healthy controls, and examines relationships between body composition, disease severity, habitual physical activity and resting and exercise energy expenditure. Results show no significant differences in overall Heath-Carter somatotype characteristics, percent body fat, fat free mass and girth measurements between COPD and control subjects although when stratified by gender, female COPD patients exhibited a greater body fat component. Measured VO2 (L/min) at rest or during steady-state exercise was not significantly different between COPD and control subjects despite a higher exercise ventilation in patients. Neither resting or exercise energy expenditure was related to body composition, however it was related to DLCO/VA (ml·min-1·mmHg -1·L-1). Findings from this study suggest that COPD patients capable of participating in dynamic exercise studies do not exhibit total body fat and muscle depletion. Findings in women suggest that the relative decrease in FFM may be related to a relatively higher proportion of body fat and not a decrease in absolute muscle mass.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".