Investigation of Cardiopulmonary Capacity, Respiratory Functions, Dyspnea, Physical Activity, Cognition, and Quality of Life of COVID-19 Vaccinated Individuals: Preliminary Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared CoronaVac-vaccinated individuals with BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals regarding cardiopulmonary capacity, pulmonary functions, dyspnea, physical activity, cognition, and quality of life. This observational report had a comparative and cross-sectional design. Thirteen individuals with BNT162b2 vaccination and seven with CoronaVac vaccination participated in the study. People aged 18-65 years who had received only two doses of one type of vaccine were included in the study. Cardiopulmonary capacity, respiratory functions, dyspnea, physical activity, and cognition were evaluated using a 6minute walk test, spirometry, the London Chest Activity of Daily Living Scale, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Long Form, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, respectively. As sub-fields of health-related quality of life, physical functioning, pain, role limitations due to physical health, role limitations due to emotional problems, emotional well-being, social functioning, energy/fatigue, and general health were assessed using the Short Form-36. There were some significant differences between groups in pain (t =2.60, p = .018, d = 1.22), emotional well-being (t = 2.34, p = .031, d = 1.10), and social functioning (U = 18.0, p = .026, rrb = .604). Cardiopulmonary capacity, respiratory functions, dyspnea, physical activity, cognition, and other sub-fields of health-related quality of life were not significantly different between groups (p > .05). CoronaVac-vaccinated individuals showed better results in pain, emotional well-being, and social functioning. However, future studies with a larger sample size are needed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".