MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in the Quality of Life: A Major Goal of Cardiac Rehabilitation

2001· review· en· W2094669951 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)DiseaseRehabilitationContext (archaeology)Gestalt psychologyCoping (psychology)PerceptionPhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychologyPathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) is a major goal in the context of preventive and therapeutic cardiology. In this article, quality of life concepts are reviewed, factors limiting QOL in cardiac disease are identified, methods of measurement are explored, and clinically significant changes are defined. The changes effected by cardiac rehabilitation are considered, together with their physiological and psychological correlates. A final section suggests avenues for future research. METHODS: Relevant articles were identified by computer literature searches and review of extensive personal files. FINDINGS: In the past, there has been an excessive focus on extending the length rather than the quality of the cardiac patient's life. The overall QOL is a broad concept, influenced by personal perceptions, coping mechanisms, and environmental constraints. The ideal test instrument would be reliable, valid, and responsive to clinical change. Potential options include a Gestalt-type instrument, a disease-specific instrument, a function-specific instrument, or a detailed generic questionnaire. There have been relatively few comparisons between these potential approaches. Currently, the Standard Gamble (Gestalt-type), and Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (disease-specific type), and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey (generic-type) are among the most popular approaches. Problems arise in distinguishing a clinically important from a statistically significant change; commonly a score change of 1 standard error of the mean is regarded as clinically important. Correlations of scores with clinical, physiological, and psychological change are sometimes weak, in part because of floor and ceiling effects. Nevertheless, potential gains in QOL provide a stronger argument for preventive and therapeutic programs than do increases in longevity. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature supports the value of QOL measurements in the management of patients with cardiac disease. However, further research is needed to determine the optimum test instrument, and the best method of interpreting resultant scores.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it