Effect of aerobic vs combined aerobic-strength training on 1-year, post-cardiac rehabilitation outcomes in women after a cardiac event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect and sustainability of 6 months combined aerobic/strength training vs aerobic training alone on quality of life in women after coronary artery by-pass graft surgery or myocardial infarction. DESIGN: Prospective, 2-group, randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-two women who were 8-10 weeks post-coronary artery by-pass graft surgery or myocardial infarction, able to attend supervised exercise, and fluent in English. METHODS: The aerobic training alone group had supervised exercise twice a week for 6 months. The aerobic/strength training group received aerobic training plus upper and lower body resistance exercises. The amount of active exercise time was matched between groups. The primary outcome, quality of life, was measured by the MOS SF-36; secondary outcomes were self-efficacy, strength and exercise capacity. RESULTS: After 6 months of supervised exercise training both groups showed statistically significant improvements in physical quality of life (p = 0.0002), peak VO2 (19% in aerobic/strength training vs 22% in aerobic training alone), strength (p < 0.0001) and self-efficacy for stair climbing (p = 0.0024), lifting (p < 0.0001) and walking (p = 0.0012). However, by 1-year follow-up there was a statistically significant difference in physical quality of life in favor of the aerobic/strength training group (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Women with coronary artery disease stand to benefit from both aerobic training alone and aerobic/strength training. However, continued improvement in physical quality of life may be achieved through combined strength and aerobic training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".