Effects of aerobic or aerobic and resistance training on cardiorespiratory and skeletal muscle function in heart failure: a randomized controlled pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examined the effects of different training modalities on exercise capacity (Vo( 2peak)), systolic function, muscular strength and endurance and quality of life in heart failure patients. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Cardiac rehabilitation centre in Canada. SUBJECTS: Forty-two individuals with heart failure (62 +/- 12 years; New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes I-III). INTERVENTIONS: Aerobic training (n = 14), combined aerobic and resistance training (n = 15) or usual care (n = 13) three times per week for 12 weeks. MAIN MEASURES: (1) Vo( 2peak) measured by symptom-limited graded exercise test on cycle ergometer; (2) systolic function assessed by two-dimensional echocardiography; (3) muscular strength and muscular endurance measured by one-repetition maximum procedure; and (4) quality of life assessed by questionnaires. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, neither aerobic nor combined aerobic and resistance training significantly improved Vo(2peak), systolic function or quality of life compared with usual care. However, combined aerobic and resistance training significantly improved upper extremity strength (40.7 (14.0)-48.5 (16.0) kg, P<0.05) and muscular endurance (5.7 (2.7)-11.6 (7.6) reps, P<0.05) compared with aerobic training or usual care. In compliant participants (exercise adherence 80%), Vo(2peak) increased in the aerobic group (16.9 (6.0)-19.0 (6.8), P= 0.026) and tended to increase in the combined training group (15.9 (5.0)-17.6 (5.6), P= 0.058) compared with usual care. Quality of life was improved in the aerobic group only. CONCLUSIONS: Both aerobic and combined aerobic and resistance training are effective interventions to improve Vo(2peak) in compliant heart failure patients. Combined training may be more effective in improving muscle strength and endurance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".