MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467065140 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-505-0-58

Improving Access to Cardiac Rehabilitation Using the Internet: A Randomized Trial

2015· article· en· W2467065140 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott A. Lear, Davina Banner, Dan Horvat, Julie E. Park, Joanna Bates, Andrew Ignaszewski

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesProvidence Health CareUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialThe InternetRehabilitationComputer scienceMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyWorld Wide WebInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is essential for secondary prevention, yet only 10%-30% of eligible patients attend as geographical proximity is a major barrier. We evaluated a 'virtual' CR program (vCRP) delivered by the Internet to patients in small urban and rural areas. In our study, in-patients (n=78) with acute coronary syndrome or post-revascularization were randomized to usual care (UC) or vCRP. The vCRP was a four-month program that included heart rate monitoring; physiologic data capture; education sessions; ask-an-expert sessions; and chat sessions with a nurse, exercise specialist and dietitian. Participants were assessed at baseline and four months, and followed for another 12 months. The primary outcome was change in maximal time on the treadmill stress test (MTT) between groups adjusted for age, sex, diabetes status and Internet use for health information. The vCRP resulted in a greater increase in MTT by 45.7 seconds (95% CI: 1.0, 90.5) compared to usual care (p=0.045). Cholesterol levels and dietary quality improved in the vCRP compared to the UC group. Participants perceived the vCRP to be an accessible, convenient and effective way to received healthcare. Eleven (30%) and 6 (18%) participants in the UC and vCRP groups, respectively, had cardiovascular-related events (p=0.275). In conclusion, the vCRP was safe and effective and resulted in sustainable risk reduction without the requirement of face-to-face visits and directly monitored exercise.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207