Changes in Exercise Capacity and Lipids after Clinic Versus Home-based Aerobic Training in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite the documented benefits of participating in rehabilitation programs, access to cardiac rehabilitation is limited for a large number of people with coronary artery disease (CAD). There is potential to increase participation in exercise training if home-based exercise were a viable option. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database review of 1,042 patients who took part in exercise rehabilitation following coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABGS) between 1992 and 1998. Of these, 713 patients took part in supervised exercise, and 329 were in an unsupervised, home-based group. All exercise protocols were based upon American College of Sports Medicine guidelines, and patients in both groups received exercise prescriptions that were similar in intensity, frequency, and duration. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups at baseline. Following 6 months of exercise training, there were substantial improvements in peak VO2, peak workload, and peak MET levels in both the supervised and unsupervised groups (P < 0.0001). Patients in the supervised group had significant improvements in both LDL and HDL-cholesterol, whereas the home-based group showed improvement in HDL-cholesterol only. When analyzed by sex, men performed better than women for all measures of exercise capacity; however, women in both groups showed approximate 20% improvements (P < 0.05) in exercise capacity as well as improvements in HDL-cholesterol. CONCLUSION: Stable post CABGS patients who receive a detailed exercise prescription to follow at home do as well as those in supervised rehabilitation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".