Feasibility and effects of adapted cardiac rehabilitation after stroke: a prospective trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the cardiovascular etiology of stroke, exercise and risk factor modification programs akin to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are not available. This study aimed to establish the feasibility of adapting a CR model for individuals with mild to moderate stroke disability. A secondary objective was to determine the program's effects on aerobic and walking capacity, and stroke risk factors. METHODS: A repeated measures design was used with a 3-month baseline period and 6-month adapted CR intervention (n = 43, mean +/- SD age 65 +/- 12 years, 30 +/- 28 months post stroke). Feasibility was determined by the number of participants who completed the study, occurrence of adverse events and frequency, duration and intensity of exercise performed. To determine effectiveness of the program, outcomes measured included aerobic capacity (VO2peak, ventilatory threshold), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) distance, and risk factors. Descriptive statistics characterized the classes attended and number and intensity of exercise sessions. Paired t-tests, one-factor repeated measures analyses of variance contrasts and chi-square analyses were used to compare changes over time. RESULTS: Two participants withdrew during the baseline period. Of the remaining 41 participants who commenced the program, 38 (93%) completed all aspects. No serious adverse effects occurred. Post-intervention, VO2peak improved relative to the stable baseline period (P = 0.046) and the increase in ventilatory threshold approached significance (P = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: CR is feasible after stroke and may be adapted to accommodate for those with a range of post-stroke disability. It is effective in increasing aerobic capacity. CR may be an untapped opportunity for stroke survivors to access programs of exercise and risk factor modification to lower future event risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01067495.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".