Exercise training improves aerobic endurance and musculoskeletal fitness in female cardiac transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Female cardiac transplant recipients' aerobic capacity is 60% lower than sex and age-predicted values. The effect of exercise training on restoring the impaired aerobic endurance and muscle strength in female cardiac transplant recipients is not known. This study examined the effect that aerobic and strength training have on improving aerobic endurance and muscle strength in female cardiac transplant recipients. METHODS: 20 female cardiac transplant recipients (51 +/- 11 years) participated in this investigation. The subjects performed a baseline six-minute walk test and a leg-press strength test when they were discharged following cardiac transplantation. The subjects then participated in a 12-week exercise program consisting of aerobic and lower extremity strength training. Baseline assessments were repeated following completion of the exercise intervention. RESULTS: At baseline, the cardiac transplant recipients' aerobic endurance was 50% lower than age-matched predicted values. The training program resulted in a significant increase in aerobic endurance (pre-training: 322 +/- 104 m vs. post-training: 501 +/- 99 m, p < 0.05) and leg-press strength (pre-training: 48 +/- 16 kg. vs. post-training: 78 +/- 27 kg, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Aerobic and strength training are effective interventions that can partially restore the impaired aerobic endurance and strength found in female cardiac transplant recipients.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | medium |
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".