Extensive Lifestyle Management Intervention Following Cardiac Rehabilitation: Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term management of the lifestyles of cardiac patients who have completed a cardiac rehabilitation program (CRP), and the risks that may develop for future health problems, have not been extensively reported. The purpose of this pilot study of graduates of CRPs was to: (a) assess lifestyle and risk factor trends, (b) test certain protocols, and (c) identify the challenges and limitations in managing lifestyles and risk factors. A convenience sample of 49 people with ischemic heart disease (IHD) was randomized to a Lifestyle Management Intervention (LMI) group and a Usual Care (UC) group and followed for 6 months. Patients assigned to the LMI group underwent six additional exercise sessions and participated in telephone follow-ups and a counseling session. Patients in the UC group were assessed at baseline and at the end of 6 months. Of the original 49 participants, 17 in the LMI group and 19 in the UC group completed the study. Patients in the LMI group showed significant reductions in total cholesterol and LDL-C from baseline at 6 months. Diastolic blood pressure was decreased significantly in the UC group. The study identified the challenges of lifestyle intervention and found that favorable risk factor modifications are possible for patients who have completed a CRP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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, 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".