The Feasibility of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing for Prescribing Exercise to People After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Despite the importance of exercise training in mitigating cardiovascular risk, the development of exercise programs for people poststroke has been limited by lack of feasibility data concerning cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to inform the exercise prescription. Therefore, we examined the feasibility of CPETs for developing an exercise prescription in people ≥3 months poststroke. METHODS: CPET results from 98 consecutively enrolled patients poststroke with motor impairments and 98 age- and sex-matched patients with coronary artery disease were examined at baseline and after 6 months of exercise training. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with stroke and coronary artery disease attaining an intensity sufficient for prescribing exercise at baseline was 68.4% versus 82.7%, respectively (P=0.02) and 84.7% versus 83.8% (P=0.9) at 6 months. Women were less likely than men poststroke to achieve a sufficient intensity at baseline (40% versus 80.9%, P<0.001) but not at 6 months (78.3% versus 87.1, P=0.3). A clinically relevant abnormality occurred in 11.2% of stroke and 12.2% of patients with coronary artery disease on baseline CPETs (P=0.8) and 10.6% of stroke and 5.9% of patients with coronary artery disease on the 6-month CPET (P=0.4). No serious cardiovascular events occurred during 349 CPETs. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients after stroke achieved a level of exertion during the CPET sufficient to inform an exercise prescription. At least 1 of 10 patients poststroke developed a clinically relevant abnormality on baseline and postprogram CPETs with no serious cardiovascular events. These data support the feasibility and safety of CPETs for prescribing exercise poststroke. Strategies to improve use of baseline CPETs for women poststroke require further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".