Aerobic Exercise Intensity Assessment and Prescription in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Aerobic exercise intensity prescription is a key issue in cardiac rehabilitation, being directly linked to both the amount of improvement in exercise capacity and the risk of adverse events during exercise. This joint position statement aims to provide professionals with up-to-date information regarding the identification of different exercise intensity domains, the methods of direct and indirect determination of exercise intensity for both continuous and interval aerobic training, the effects of the use of different exercise protocols on exercise intensity prescription and the indications for recommended exercise training prescription in specific cardiac patients' groups. The importance of functional evaluation through exercise testing prior to starting an aerobic training program is strongly emphasized, and ramp incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test, when available, is proposed as the gold standard for a physiologically comprehensive exercise intensity assessment and prescription. This may allow a shift from a ‘range-based’ to a ‘threshold-based’ aerobic exercise intensity prescription, which, combined with thorough clinical evaluation and exercise-related risk assessment, could maximize the benefits obtainable by the use of aerobic exercise training in cardiac rehabilitation. Aerobic Exercise Intensity Assessment and Prescription in Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Joint Position Statement of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".