CHANGES IN HEMORHEOLOGICAL PROFILE OF MEN WITH CHD ENTERING A PHASE I/II CARDIAC REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if several hemorheological parameters remained constant for older men entering a phase I/II cardiac rehabilitation program. Ten nonsmoking men with known ischemic heart disease (IHD) not taking diuretics (mean age = 60.2 ± 11.6 yrs) volunteered to participate in this study. Initial blood samples were taken during the cardiac rehabilitation admission clinic and analyzed for plasma fibrinogen concentration (FIB)(3.2 ± 0.5 g/l), hematocrit (HC) (39.2 ± 3.5), and plasma viscosity (PV)(1.28 ± 0.09 mPa's). Subjects were returned to the community while they waited to start the formal cardiac rehabilitation classes. During this time (mean interval = 39.1 ± 13.0 days) no formal exercise prescription was followed nor was there any significant change to their pharmacological therapy. Subjects were then re-tested for FIB (3.1 ± 0.5 g/l), HC (36.7 ± 4.6) and PV (1.21 ± 0.7 mPa · s) just prior to starting the cardiac rehabilitation classes. Two tailed, paired t-test revealed a significant change to PV (p < 0.01) and HC (p < 0.01) but no significant change to FIB (p = 0.41). Further analysis revealed a significant correlation between the change in PV and the change in FIB (r = 0.71, p < 0.01), and a significant correlation between the change in PV and the change in HC (r = 0.51, p = 0.05). The findings suggest: 1) PV and HC did not remain constant over the time period, 2) a significant relationship indicates the change in PV can be accounted for by the change in FIB, 3) the common decrease in HC and FIB (both concentration measures) suggest that there was a change in plasma volume.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".