The Independent Effect of Traditional Cardiac Rehabilitation and the LEARN Program on Weight Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite its numerous other benefits, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has not consistently proven to be an effective, although much needed, intervention for weight loss in the cardiovascular disease (CVD) population. Comparatively, the LEARN (Lifestyle, Exercise, Attitudes, Relationships, Nutrition) program appears to be an effective intervention for weight loss. The purpose of the present investigation was to compare changes in body weight in a CVD cohort consecutively participating in traditional CR and the LEARN program. METHODS: Forty-four patients diagnosed with CVD (22 men/22 women) participated in a 12-week multidisciplinary CR program. All patients successfully completed the LEARN program following CR. Body mass index (BMI) and body weight were recorded immediately prior to and following both CR and LEARN. RESULTS: The peak metabolic equivalents were significantly higher following CR (7.3 ± 1.6 vs 8.5 ± 1.6, P < .001), while body weight (203.5 ± 32.6 vs 201.8 ± 32.5 lbs, P > .10) and BMI (32.1 ± 4.0 vs 31.8 ± 3.9 kg/m, P > .05) were unchanged. All subjects then successfully completed the LEARN program, participating in an average of 10 sessions. There was a significant reduction in body weight (203.3 ± 30.7 vs 190.1 ± 30.4 lbs, P < .001) and BMI (32.0 ± 3.9 vs 29.5 ± 3.8 kg/m, P < .001) following the LEARN program. DISCUSSION: Our results support the independent value of the LEARN program in eliciting weight loss for CR patients. Clinicians delivering CR services should consider integrating a focused weight loss program, such as LEARN, into their usual CR programs.
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 | 0.007 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".