The Canadian Cardiac Rehabilitation Registry: Inaugural Report on the Status of Cardiac Rehabilitation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. There are over 200 Cardiovascular Rehabilitation (CR) programs in Canada, providing services to more than 50,000 new patients annually. The objective of this study was to describe the impact of CR in Canada. Methods. A retrospective analysis of Canadian CR Registry data is presented. There were 12 programs participating, with 4546 CR participants. Results. The average wait time between patient referral and CR admission was 68 ± 64 days. Participants were 66.3 ± 11.5 years old, 71% male, and 82% White. The three leading referral events were coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention, and acute coronary syndrome. At discharge, data were available for ~90% of participants. Significant improvements in blood pressure (systolic pre-CR 123.5 ± 17.0, post-CR 121.5 ± 15.8 mmHg; p < .001), lipids, adiposity, and exercise capacity (peak METs pre-CR 6.5 ± 2.8, post-CR 7.2 ± 3.1; p < .001) were observed. However, target attainment for some risk factors was suboptimal. Conclusions. This report provides the first snapshot of the beneficial effects of CR in Canada. Not all patients are equally represented in these programs, however, leaving room for more referral of diverse patients. Greater attainment of risk reduction targets should be pursued.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".