Canadian guidelines for cardiac rehabilitation and atherosclerotic heart disease prevention: a summary.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atherosclerotic heart disease (AHD) is the leading cause of death in Canadian women and men. Cardiac rehabilitation has been repeatedly shown to reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality significantly among patients with documented AHD. The Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation (CACR) has defined cardiac rehabilitation as "the enhancement and maintenance of cardiovascular health through individualized programs designed to optimize physical, psychological, social, vocational and emotional status. This process includes the facilitation and delivery of secondary prevention through heart hazard (risk factor) identification and modification in an effort to prevent disease progression and the recurrence of cardiac events". This summary presents a limited amount of background information and the majority of clinical practice recommendations contained within the previously published CACR Guidelines. These evidence-based clinical recommendations are intended as guidelines to good clinical practice rather than as standards of care. The key focus of this summary is the need for complete and targeted intervention of all heart hazards in patients at high or very high risk for, or with documented, AHD. To achieve this goal, the CACR Guidelines and this summary present risk stratification strategies designed to determine unambiguously a patient's risk of exercise-related cardiac events (short term absolute risk or disease prognosis) and their risk of recurrent AHD events (long term absolute risk from disease progression). The establishment of the short term and long term absolute AHD risks can then be used to determine heart hazard targets and the type of exercise program prescribed for patients with AHD. Despite the use of evidence-based medical practices, none of the recommendations presented in this document can replace the expert judgment of properly trained and experienced cardiac rehabilitation professionals. Health care providers must always be free to choose where and when clinical practice guidelines are applied, modified or superceded, depending on individual patient circumstances.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.018 |
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".