Cardiac Rehabilitation After Stroke—Need and Opportunity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In North America, established long-term rehabilitation programs are commonly available for individuals following a cardiac event but are largely unavailable for stroke survivors. The purpose of this study was to determine (1) the availability of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for individuals poststroke (survey of all programs in Ontario, Canada) and (2) the effects of CR, comparing individuals with primary and secondary diagnoses of stroke versus those with cardiac diagnoses only (retrospective review of a large outpatient North American program). METHODS: An Ontario-wide survey was disseminated to CR programs to determine barriers to enrollment of stroke participants. Additionally, a retrospective analysis of data from 9,173 participants in 1 CR program in Toronto, Ontario, compared 3 subgroups (n = 19 each): (1) primary diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), (2) primary cardiac diagnosis and occurrence of stroke or TIA, and (3) cardiac diagnoses only. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 40 (60%) programs surveyed included stroke participants, although the proportion was small (<5% of total enrollment). Barriers to enrollment included issues around primary diagnosis and degree of stroke-related disability. While those with a history of stroke or TIA had a lower baseline peak oxygen uptake, all 3 groups showed comparable postprogram improvements in peak oxygen uptake and anaerobic threshold (time effect, P < .001). There were no group-time interaction effects. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the common cardiovascular etiology of stroke and heart disease, individuals with stroke are not routinely included in CR in Ontario. However, individuals with stroke demonstrated similar training-related improvements in exercise capacity compared with nonstroke participants.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".