Examination of Cardiac Rehabilitation Participants Referred to a Musculoskeletal Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief PURPOSE: To describe participants in a cardiac rehabilitation program who were referred to an in-house musculoskeletal clinic and their cardiac rehabilitation and musculoskeletal outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was done on 51 participants who were referred to the musculoskeletal clinic between February 1, 2009, and March 31, 2010. Data on demographics, clinical characteristics, and cardiac rehabilitation and musculoskeletal outcomes were collected. Analyses included descriptive statistics and nonparametric analysis of outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 51 participants, 88.2% reported preexisting musculoskeletal conditions. The most common region of diagnosed musculoskeletal conditions included knee(s) (45.1%), back (25.5%), and shoulder(s) (17.6%). For those who attended the musculoskeletal clinic and had pre-/postintervention data (n = 14), there was a significant improvement from initial to final mean Numerical Pain Rating Scale scores (P = .001) and peak oxygen uptake measures (P = .002). CONCLUSION: A musculoskeletal clinic within a cardiac rehabilitation program could allow for musculoskeletal conditions to be addressed in an effective manner and potentially minimize their negative impact on cardiac rehabilitation participation and outcomes. This retrospective chart review found that cardiac rehabilitation program participants referred to a musculoskeletal clinic had preexisting musculoskeletal conditions, commonly in the knee(s), back, and shoulder(s). Significant improvements were seen in pain scores and functional capacity, suggesting that a musculoskeletal clinic might improve cardiac rehabilitation participation and outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".