Cardiac rehabilitation for women: a systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current cardiac rehabilitation (CR) evidence was systematically evaluated to identify program components that may yield improvements in physiological and psychosocial outcomes in women. METHODS: A search was conducted in the electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Sport Discus and Cochrane Library. Search terms included women, heart disease, exercise therapy, and cardiac rehabilitation. A systematic elimination process was used with specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. Included articles were independently evaluated by four reviewers for level of evidence and internal validity. Specific recommendations were made based on trends in the literature and strength of supporting evidence. RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles were included with a combined sample of 3,807 subjects. Ten studies included an analysis of physiological effects of exercise. Aerobic, resistance, and combined exercise interventions all yield physiological benefits. CR yielded favourable health-related quality of life outcomes and women benefited from psychosocial support in both formal and informal environments. CONCLUSIONS: The following recommendations are based on the review: 1) For patients with good cardiac function, community/home-based programs are as effective as supervised programs (Level II, B); 2) resistance training should be included as an adjunct to aerobic training (Level I, A); 3) programs need to address the specific educational needs of women (Level I, A) and a stronger emphasis needs to be placed on social support (Level II, B).
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".