Patient Characteristics, Compliance, and Exercise Outcomes of South Asians Enrolled in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief PURPOSE: To compare patient demographics, the presence or absence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors, medications on entry, compliance with cardiac rehabilitation (CR), and exercise outcomes at 6 months among South Asians and whites attending a CR program. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of South Asian (n = 220) and white (n = 980) patients participating in 2 outpatient, hospital-based CR programs over a 3-year period. RESULTS: South Asians were younger (56 vs 59 years; P = .004), had lower body mass index (26.8 vs 28.4 kg/m2; P < .0001), had lower rates of hypertension (36% vs 45%; P = .01), were less likely to be smokers (25% vs 50%; P = .00001), and were more likely to have diabetes (36% vs 23%; P = .0001). Compliance with the 6-month CR program was poor in both groups, but South Asians were less likely to complete the entire program (43% vs 51%; P = .04). Over the course of CR, maximum achieved metabolic equivalent during stress testing improved in both groups; however, South Asian patients trended to a greater change and more often reached at least 85% of target heart rate (55% vs 42%; P = .02). CONCLUSION: South Asians participating in CR are younger, have a different risk factor profile, benefit equally, but are less compliant than whites. Further research is needed to better understand the barriers faced by South Asians in successfully participating in and completing CR programs. Risk factor profiles of South Asian and white participants in a cardiac rehabilitation program differ significantly. Although compliance was lower, South Asians showed greater improvements in exercise outcomes. Our study suggests that targeting this known high-risk ethnic subset is effective and warranted in light of the proven benefits of cardiac rehabilitation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".