MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537985877 · doi:10.1111/ijn.12193

The effect of individual education on patients’ physical activity capacity after myocardial infarction

2013· article· en· W1537985877 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hilal Uysal, Şeyda Özcan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTürk Kardiyoloji Derneği
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionMedicineWaistBody mass indexPhysical therapyInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aims to determine the effects of individual education and counselling given to first-time myocardial infarction patients, including its effect on compliance with treatment. The sample comprised 90 patients, 45 in the intervention and 45 in the control group, selected by sequential sampling from first-time myocardial infarction patients. Data were collected between April and November 2008 by means of patient information form, International Physical Activity Questionnaire, 6 min walk test, Modified Borg Scale, Morisky Medication Adherence Scale and Canadian Cardiovascular Society Angina Grade Classification. In the intervention group more improvement was observed in comparison with the control group in terms of frequency of physical activity, body mass index and waist circumference. It was observed that the intervention group's metabolic equivalent of task values and 6 min walk test distance increased more in comparison with the control group 3 months after baseline, and there was a statistically significant difference. The results indicated that individual education and counselling provided to patients having experienced acute myocardial infarction increased functional capacity by providing patients with advice on how to lose weight and by improving compliance with treatment through physical activity behaviours (frequency and duration).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing PracticeSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207