Examining the Steps-Per-Day Trajectories of Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief PURPOSE: Research suggests that cardiac rehabilitation (CR) patients need to engage in at least 6500 steps per day to obtain health benefits. Unfortunately, very little is known about the steps-per-day trajectories of these patients and whether the demographic, clinical, and CR program characteristics are similar for these trajectories. METHODS: Patients (n = 235) completed a questionnaire assessing demographic and clinical variables upon entry to CR and subsequently wore a pedometer for 7 days at the end of CR, and 3, 6, and 9 months after completing CR. RESULTS: Latent class growth analyses showed that 3 classes of patients emerged that were termed nonadherers (averaged ∼3112 steps per day at the end of CR and remained stable up to 9 months after CR), significant decliners (averaged ∼7010 steps per day at the end of CR and steadily declined after CR), and optimal adherers (averaged ∼10 700 steps per day and remained stable after CR). Logistic regressions showed that nonadherers were more likely to be obese, have at least 1 comorbidity, and a lower exercise capacity compared with the significant decliners/optimal adherers. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct steps-per-day trajectories exist for CR patients that are partially distinguished by demographic and clinical variables. Little is known about the steps-per-day trajectories of cardiac rehabilitation patients. Latent class growth analyses on 235 patients showed that distinct steps-per-day trajectories exist that are partially distinguished by demographic and clinical variables.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".