Abstract MP66: AREST Lifestyle: Adherence Effects of a Comprehensive Reminder System on Exercise Adherence in Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The risk of recurrent cardiac events can be reduced by 30-50% through regular, structured exercise; however, there remains a high rate of inactivity in post myocardial infarction (MI) patients. Forgetting to exercise may be a contributor to inactivity. This study assessed the hypothesis that text message reminders may be an effective strategy to reduce forgetfulness and inactivity. Methods: In this one year, single center study, we recruited 50 cardiac rehabilitation patients within 2 weeks of their MI. Participants were randomized to usual care or to receive text message reminders 4 times daily which stated "Please remember to exercise 45 minutes today". The outcomes measured were the frequency and total duration of exercise (assessed by log books) and physical endurance/ aerobic fitness (assessed by exercise stress testing at months 1, 3 and 12). Results: Intervention and control patients had similar baseline characteristics with an average age of 64. In the control group, monthly duration of exercise fell from an average of 683 minutes over 17 days at month 1 to 416 minutes over 11 days at month 12. Patients randomized to text message reminders exercised 772 minutes over 18 days at month 1 and 794 minutes over 18 days in month 12 (p<0.01 for duration of exercise, control versus intervention, month 12). Baseline aerobic fitness and cardiac endurance was similar between control and intervention groups. However, there was a significant improvement in aerobic fitness and cardiac endurance at month 12 with text reminders (7.4 versus 6.1 METS achieved month 12, p<0.01). In all sub-groups analyzed this intervention significantly improved exercise adherence and fitness. Conclusions: In summary, this system improved frequency and duration of exercise, and objective measures of cardiac endurance and aerobic fitness. While this study was not designed to assess clinical outcomes, this text message reminder system represents a simple and scalable method for improving adherence to exercise regimens among post-MI patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".