MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403544258

Sex differences in cardiac rehabilitation.

2000· article· en· W2403544258 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia O’Farrell, Judy Murray, Patricia Huston, Christine Legrand, Kristi B. Adamo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineBody mass indexPsychosocialBlood pressureCholesterolPhysical therapyCardiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the baseline characteristics and outcomes between men and women in a Canadian cardiac rehabilitation program. DESIGN: Nonrandomized, retrospective, observational study with a before and after research design. SETTING: The Prevention and Rehabilitation Centre at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, a tertiary cardiac care centre. PATIENTS: Three hundred and eighty-seven patients, 82% male aged 59+/-10 years and 18% female aged 61+/-4 years, who were enrolled in the on-site cardiac rehabilitation program between November 1, 1995 and April 1, 1997. INTERVENTION: A three-month, multifactorial cardiac rehabilitation program that incorporates exercise training, risk factor modification, education and psychosocial support. MAIN RESULTS: Fewer than 20% of all rehabilitation participants (n=70; 18%) were women; most participants were under 65 years of age. More women than men had a primary diagnosis of myocardial infarction (42% versus 28%, respectively), whereas men were more likely than women to have had coronary artery bypass grafting (45% versus 23%, respectively). Men and women had similar mean baseline measures of body mass index, blood pressure and glucose levels, whereas women had significantly higher mean baseline measures of total cholesterol (5.6 mmol/L versus 5.0 mmol/L for men, P 0.001), low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (3.4 mmol/L versus 3.1 mmol/L, P=0. 012) and high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (1.2 mmol/L versus 1.0 mmol/L, P 0.001). Baseline LDL to HDL ratios were 3.3 for men and 3.0 for women (not significant), and total cholesterol to HDL ratios were 5.4 and 4.9 for men and women, respectively. Men had a higher exercise capacity than women coming into the program (metabolic equivalent [METs] 6.6 versus 4.9, respectively, P 0.001), had a higher baseline activity level (1114 kcal/week versus 617 kcal/week, P=0.001) and scored higher than women in all health-related quality of life scores. After the program, there were no significant sex differences in improvement in MET level, physical activity or risk factor profile. Although men exercised more than women (increase of 557 kcal/week versus 343 kcal/week, respectively), this was not statistically significant. In health-related quality of life scores, both men and women improved in all scores, although women reported less increase than men in their level of overall vitality (P=0.016). CONCLUSION: Women are the minority of cardiac rehabilitation patients, although they appear to benefit equally well from the program.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations87
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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