MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223719703

Cardiac rehabilitation wait times and relation to patient outcomes.

2015· article· en· W2223719703 on OpenAlexaff
Collins Zc, Neville Suskin, Sandeep Aggarwal, Sherry L. Grace

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineMEDLINERehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)Psychological interventionPhysical therapyPsychiatryNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Most cardiac rehabilitation (CR) associations have published guidelines recommending timely and early access. AIM: To review the effects of early CR initiation on patient outcomes, and to describe the wait times associated with positive outcomes. DESIGN: Studies were identified via a limited systematic search on key resource databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. A focused Internet search was conducted with a concentrated grey literature search for evidence reports. POPULATION: Studies which enrolled adult cardiac patients who were eligible to participate in a CR program, based on CR guidelines, were considered. METHODS: Methodological filters limited retrieval for articles published between January 1, 2002-March 4, 2013. Two reviewers screened references which were identified by the search strategy by examining the titles and abstracts. If the abstract identified the appropriate patient group, and addressed CR wait times, the full article was obtained for inclusion consideration. Ten articles were included for review. Results were extracted from included studies, and results were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Early access was generally shown to be safe, and to have positive effects in terms of cardiac function and patient enrollment. Positive effects on functional capacity were shown with CR initiation within 3 months from an index event. Effects on quality of life were null in the long-term. Wait times ranged from 8.5-127.0 days. Seventeen days may be the optimal wait time to balance benefit with risk. CONCLUSION: Timely access to cardiac rehab can achieve greater patient enrolment. Research on the effects of early access on heart healthy behaviors and mental health are needed. Evidence-based recommendations for wait times should be formulated by indication. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Delays to intake should be minimized, and wait times shortened significantly, so that patients can reap the maximum benefits from CR participation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207