Is vigorous physical activity contraindicated in subjects with coronary heart disease? Evidence from the Caerphilly study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: A large study of British civil servants reported that, in men with electrocardiogram ischaemia but no symptoms, vigorous habitual leisure activity might be associated with increased subsequent risk of myocardial infarction (MI). We examine this for MI and stroke in a general population of British men. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 1984 and 1988, 2398 middle-aged men were recruited into the cohort in Caerphilly, South Wales, UK. Physical activities during leisure and at work were assessed by validated questionnaires. Follow-up was for 12 years, and both fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events (MI, stroke or MI, and stroke) were recorded. After adjustment for age and other confounders, men in the highest third of vigorous physical activity experienced decreased risk of MI, relative to men in the lowest third; hazard ratios (HR) (95% CI) were 0.71 (0.50, 1.03), 0.42 (0.19, 0.92), and 0.60 (0.38, 0.94) in men with symptomatic, asymptomatic coronary heart disease (CHD), and no evidence of CHD at baseline, respectively. HRs for stroke were non-significantly raised for subjects with asymptomatic CHD (1.36 (0.47, 3.91). CONCLUSION: Habitual vigorous activity was not associated with increased risk of subsequent MI in subjects with established CHD, but additional data for stroke would be useful.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".