Clinical exercise prescription for Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise intolerance is common in persons living with Atrial Fibrillation increasing the risk for various secondary complications (such as stroke). Structured and individualized exercise prescription has been shown to be a highly effective means of addressing the increased risk for secondary complications. This document outlines the evidence-based best practice guidelines for developing individualized exercise prescriptions for persons living with Atrial Fibrillation. This includes a 5-page document that can be used by healthcare professionals and patients alike. This document has undergone a systematic evaluation, consensus panel review and approval process (consistent with the AGREE guidelines), and direct evaluation by healthcare professionals from across Canada. This process identified the various factors that need to be considered when determining the correct mode/type and intensity of exercise for persons living with Atrial Fibrillation. It was apparent that the application of generic physical activity guidelines (developed for healthy individuals) to the treatment of Atrial Fibrillation is not recommended. Based on a systematic evaluation of the literature and strong body of evidence, it was recommended that persons living with Atrial Fibrillation should engage in moderate intensity whole body aerobic activities progressing towards 60 min per session (3-5 days per week) for an improvement in quality of life and overall health status. Exercise sessions should also incorporate stretching, balance, and resistance exercises. Individuals next to exercise should progress towards this goal.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".