Lower limb fatigue, during walking in patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The contribution of quadriceps muscle fatigue to cycling exercise intolerance is well recognized in COPD. Whether muscle fatigue occurs in plantar and dorsi-flexor muscles during walking is still unknown in these patients. Aim: To compare muscle strength and fatigue induced by walking exercise in plantar and dorsi-flexor muscles between COPD patients and healthy subjects. Method: Eleven patients with COPD (FEV1 58±15%pred.) and 11 healthy subjects matched for age and BMI performed a 12-minute walking exercise. The speed and slope of the treadmill were adjusted to achieve a targeted 40 Kcal energy expenditure for each subject. Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and twitch force (Tw) measured by magnetic stimulation were obtained for plantar and dorsi-flexor muscles prior to and 15 minutes after exercise. Results: At rest, MVC and Tw tended to be lower in COPD patients compared to healthy subjects for plantar (51.5±12.8 vs 65.6±21.7 kg, p=0.08 and 10.9±3.7 vs 13.2±2.6 kg, p=0.09) and dorsi-flexor (24.8±10.7 vs 32.7±8.4 kg, p=0.06 and 4.2±1.4 vs 6.12±1.3 kg, p<0.05) muscles. In COPD patients both, MVC and Tw were significantly decreased 15 min after exercise for plantar-flexor (-8±10% and -15±21%, p<0.05) and for dorsi-flexor (-6±11% and-31±19%, p<0.05) muscles. There was no difference in healthy subjects post-exercise for either plantar-flexor (1±10% and -4±14%), or dorsi-flexor muscles (1±3% and 4±7%). Conclusion: Muscle weakness and a susceptibility to develop muscle fatigue after walking occur in the plantar and dorsi-flexor muscles in patients with COPD compared to controls. Project supported by the Réseau en santé respiratoire du FRSQ
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 | 0.000 | 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".