Cardiac rehabilitation for women with breast cancer and treatment-related heart failure compared with coronary artery disease: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine clinical outcomes and completion rates of cardiac rehabilitation in women with breast cancer and treatment-related heart failure. METHODS: Data for women with breast cancer and treatment-related heart failure were compared with those for age-matched women with coronary artery disease. Retrospective data were obtained from the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute database for dates between 1998 and 2011, for cardiopulmonary exercise test results at baseline and 6 months, body composition measures, and cardiac rehabilitation completion rates. RESULTS: A total of 29 women with breast cancer and treatment-related heart failure (mean 57 years (standard deviation (SD) 9.4)) and 29 age-matched women with coronary artery disease were identified. There was no significant difference between the proportion of women with breast cancer and treatment-related heart failure and those with coronary artery disease who completed the programme. Peak aerobic power (VO2peak) increased in the breast cancer and treatment-related heart failure group (mean 16.2 ml-1.kg-1.min-1 (SD 3.4) to mean 18.5 ml-1.kg-1.min-1 (SD 4.5) ; p = 0.002) and in the coronary artery disease group (mean 18.9 ml-1.kg-1.min-1 (SD 4.5) to mean 20.8 ml-1.kg-1.min-1 (SD 4.9); p = 0.01). Body fat percentage increased in the breast cancer and treatment-related heart failure group (mean 34.8% (SD 8.5) to mean 36.3% (SD 6.9); p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Women with breast cancer and treatment-related heart failure participating in cardiac rehabilitation demonstrate similar significant gains in VO2peak and similar completion rates to those of age-matched women with coronary artery disease. Further research is needed to determine interventions that improve body composition in women with breast cancer and treatment-related heart failure.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".