Cardiac rehabilitation improved exercise tolerance after a myocardial infarction in older patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marchionni N, Fattirolli F, Fumagalli S, et al . Improved exercise tolerance and quality of life with cardiac rehabilitation of older patients after myocardial infarction: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Circulation 2003;107:2201–6.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In patients >45 years of age who have had a myocardial infarction (MI), does cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improve short and long term exercise tolerance? ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: unclear. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: blinded (healthcare providers, data collectors, and outcomes assessors). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: 14 months. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: a university CR unit in Florence, Italy. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 270 patients >45 years of age (age range 46–86 y, 68% men) who were referred to the CR unit for functional evaluation 4–6 weeks after MI. Exclusion criteria included severe cognitive impairment or physical disability, left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, contraindications to vigorous physical exercise, and living too far from the CR unit. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Interventions: Patients were allocated in an age (3 age groups predefined as middle aged 45–65 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCirculation%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1161%252F01.CIR.0000066322.21016.4A%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12707240%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=circulationaha&resid=107/17/2201&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F1%2F20.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".