Cardiac Rehabilitation to Improve Physical Functioning in Refractory Angina: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Refractory angina patients suffer debilitating chest pain despite optimal medical therapy and previous cardiovascular intervention. Cardiac rehabilitation is often not prescribed due to a lack of evidence regarding potential efficacy and patient suitability. A randomised controlled study was undertaken to explore the impact of cardiac rehabilitation on cardiovascular risk factors, physical ability, quality of life and psychological morbidity among refractory angina sufferers. METHODS: Forty-two refractory angina patients (65.1 ± 7.3 years) were randomly assigned to an 8-week Phase III cardiac rehabilitation program or symptom diary control. Physical assessment, Progressive Shuttle Walk test, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Health Anxiety Questionnaire, the York Angina Beliefs scale, ENRICHD Social Support Instrument and SF-36 were completed before and after intervention and at 8-week follow-up. RESULTS: Following cardiac rehabilitation, patients demonstrated improved physical ability compared with controls in Progressive Shuttle Walk level attainment (p = 0.005) and total distance covered (p = 0.015). Angina frequency and severity remained unchanged in both groups, with the control demonstrating worsening SF-36 pain scale (63.43 ± 22.28 vs. 55.46 ± 23.98, p = 0.025). Cardiac rehabilitation participants showed improved Health Anxiety Questionnaire reassurance (1.71 ± 1.72 vs. 1.14 ± 1.23, p = 0.026) and York Beliefs anginal threat perception (12.42 ± 4.58 vs. 14.35 ± 4.73, p = 0.05) after cardiac rehabilitation. Physical measures were broadly unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac rehabilitation can be prescribed to improve physical ability without affecting angina frequency or severity among patients with refractory angina.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".