Effect of asthma-COPD overlap compared to COPD on cardiopulmonary exercise test outcomes: Insights from the CanCOLD study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is currently unknown whether differences in clinical and patient-reported outcomes that have been reported among people with asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap (ACO) compared to COPD are associated with contemporaneous differences in exercise tolerance and its physiological and perceptual determinants. This study tested the hypothesis that, compared to people with COPD, people with ACO will have more severe exercise intolerance in association with greater pathophysiological abnormalities in exertional breathlessness, exercise ventilatory inefficiency, and dynamic breathing mechanics. Methods: 411 participants who completed a cardiopulmonary cycle exercise test (CPET) as part of Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) Visit 1 were included. Participants were identified into five groups: ACO1 (n=103), self-reported presence of respiratory allergies and/or hay fever (atopy); ACO2 (n=125), self-reported physician diagnosed asthma; and ACO3 (n=65), combination of self-reported atopy and physician diagnosed asthma, Any-ACO (n=163), participants meeting either one or combination of the definitions for ACO1-3; and COPD (n=248), (no-ACO) they did not self-report atopy and/or physician diagnosed asthma. Results: Compared to people with COPD alone, people with ACO had similar physiological responses to symptom-limited incremental cycle CPET without evidence of greater pathophysiological abnormalities in peak exercise capacity. Conclusion: This study added to the physiological characterization of ACO by demonstrating, for the first time, that, above and beyond the established negative effect of COPD on exercise tolerance, the co-existence of asthma had no added detrimental effect
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".