Exercise in a Healthy Heart Program: A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of exercise on resting heart rate (RHR), weight, lipid profile, and blood pressure. We hypothesized that the participants who increased their physical activity would show improvement in their cardiovascular risk factors compared to those who did not. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review over the mean duration of 4.9 years of follow-up. SETTING: Healthy Heart Program Prevention Clinic at St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 300 charts of patients randomly selected from those who attended the Prevention Clinic between 1984 and 2009. 248 (82.7%) patients were referred for primary prevention and 52 (17.3%) for secondary prevention. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight, RHR, lipid profile, and blood pressure were recorded at the initial and last visit. RESULTS: During a mean of 4.9 years of follow-up, 55% of participants improved their exercise. The mean decrease in the RHR for these patients (group 1) was 5.9 beats per minute (bpm) versus the mean increase of 0.3 bpm for the "no change" group (group 2) (P < 0.01). The mean net weight increase in group 1 was 0.06 kg/year versus 0.25 kg/year in group 2. Because of medications, all patients had a significant improvement in their lipid profiles. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant greater reduction in Framingham Risk Score (FRS) in group 1 versus group 2 (11.8% versus 15.1%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Participation in the program significantly reduces modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Improved exercise regimen results in lower RHR and greater reduction in FRS. However, even in a Prevention Program, despite strong advocacy of the importance of exercise, a significant percentage of participants does not improve their exercise habits.
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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".