Six-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial examining hospital versus home-based exercise training after coronary artery bypass graft surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term effectiveness of hospital versus telephone-monitored home-based exercise training during cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on exercise capacity and habitual physical activity. DESIGN: Six-year follow-up of patients who participated in a randomised controlled trial of hospital versus monitored home-based exercise training during CR after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. SETTING: Outpatient CR centre in Central-South Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 196 Patients who participated in the original randomised controlled trial and who attended an evaluation 1 year after CR. INTERVENTIONS: 6 months of home or hospital-based exercise training during CR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Peak oxygen uptake (peak Vo₂), Physical Activity Scale in the Elderly (PASE) to assess habitual activity, semi-structured interviews to assess vital status, demographic and descriptive information. RESULTS: Of the 196 eligible patients, 144 (75.5%; 74 Hospital, 70 Home) were available for participation. Patients were predominantly male (n = 120; 83.3%) aged 70 ± 9.5 years. Clinical and sociodemographic outcomes were similar in both groups. While exercise performance declined over time, there were significant between-group differences in peak Vo₂) (1506 ± 418 ml/min vs 1393 ± 341 ml/min; p = 0.017) and PASE scores (166.7 ± 90.2 vs 139.7 ± 66.5; p = 0.001) at 6-year follow-up in favour of the home group. CONCLUSIONS: Home and hospital-based exercise training maintained exercise capacity above pre-CR levels 6 years after CR. Exercise training initiated in the home environment in low-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery conferred greater long-term benefit on Vo₂ and persistent physical activity compared with traditional hospital-based CR.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".