Influence of a Cardiac Rehabilitation Program on Renal Function in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease in a One-Year Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise training may improve renal function in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The effect of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) with exercise training on renal function has not yet been established. We evaluated the effects of CR on renal function in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Methods: Twenty-three CVD patients in a 1-year CR program (CR group) who had ischemic heart disease (IHD) and/or heart failure were compared with 26 age- and gender-matched CVD patients without CR (non-CR group, standard pharmacological care alone). At baseline and after 1 year, urea nitrogen (UN), creatinine (Cr), potassium (K), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and hematocrit (Hct) in blood were assessed. Results: There were no differences in the patient characteristics at baseline between the CR and non-CR groups except for the percentages of heart failure and the use of calcium channel blocker. After 1 year, there were no significant changes in UN, Cr, K, eGFR or Hct in either the CR or non-CR groups. The patients in the CR group were divided into two groups according to the eGFR level at baseline: low (n = 12, eGFR < 51 mL/minute/1.73 m 2 , indicating mild-to-moderate CKD) and high (n = 11, eGFR >=51 mL/minute/1.73 m 2 ) eGFR groups. Although there were no differences in the patient characteristics at baseline between the low and high eGFR groups, the low eGFR group showed a significant increase in eGFR after the 1-year CR program. Conclusions: CR may improve renal function in patients with mild-to-moderate CKD. Cardiol Res. 2015;6(4-5):311-315 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/cr440e
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".