Can prolonged exercise-induced myocardial ischaemia be innocuous?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the innocuousness of intense and prolonged exercise training above the threshold for myocardial ischaemia (1 mm ST-segment depression). METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) were randomized to exercise training either at a target intensity that induced myocardial ischaemia (ischaemic group) or that adhered to current guidelines (control group). Training was progressively increased to 60 min under continuous electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring. Cardiac troponin T (cTnT) was measured at various intervals. Ambulatory ECG monitoring was performed before and after 6 weeks of training and left ventricular function was evaluated in the ischaemic group after at least 6 weeks of training. The ischaemic group had myocardial ischaemia during the first 20, 40, and 60 min exercise sessions for 12.3 +/- 6.8, 29.0 +/- 12.9, and 49.8 +/- 2.2 min, respectively, with ST-segment depression ranging from 1.0 to 2.1 mm. No patient in either group demonstrated significant arrhythmias or increased cTnT. The ischaemic group had preserved left ventricular function. CONCLUSION: In patients with IHD, prolonged and repeated ischaemic training sessions up to 60 min can be well tolerated without evidence of myocardial injury, significant arrhythmias, or left ventricular dysfunction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".