7 versus 12 weeks of exercice in hopital based COPD rehabilitation.:Does it make a difference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the Danish guidelines for COPD rehabilitation, the exercise recommendations are primarily based on studies using interventions lasting minimum 10 weeks. Furthermore, patients with COPD often have cognitive problems, requiring an intervention of a longer duration to facilitate life style changes including exercise habits. The aim of this study was to investigate whether increasing the duration of a COPD rehabilitation program from 7 to 12 weeks would correspondingly increase the effect. Materials and Methods: The study is a before-after study with 3 months follow-up. All patients participating in the COPD rehabilitation program at Regional Hospital Silkeborg in the period May 2015 to October 2016 were included. The effect was assessed using the Endurance Shuttle Walk Test (ESWT), the sit-to-stand test (STA), the COPD Assessment Scale (CAT) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). The outcomes were measured before and after the rehabilitation program, and 3 months after termination of the rehabilitation program. Results: 23 patients were included in the 7-week group and 27 in the 12-week group . Both groups improved significantly on all the measured outcomes from pre- to post rehabilitation, with no differences between the two groups. At the three month follow-up this improvement was no longer significant, except for the COPM, and there were no differences between the two groups on any outcomes. Conclusion: Prolonging our COPD rehabilitation program from 7 to 12 weeks, did not improve the effect significantly in terms of physical capacity and muscle strength, and neither did the effect last longer. Only on the COPM did the two groups maintain their improvement, but again there was no difference between groups. Based on these findings we did not find reason to maintain the prolonged program.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".