Translating physical activity recommendations into steps per day for cardiac rehabilitation patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is recommended that people attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs engage in =150 minutes per week of moderate to vigourous physical activity (MVPA). However, it is unknown how many steps / day are required to meet the MVPA recommendation. Methods: 208 patients were recruited within the 1st 3 weeks of attending 12-week CR programs across Nova Scotia. They also completed a comprehensive social ecological survey and wore an actigraph accelerometer and GPS unit ranging from 9 to 14 days. The same procedure was done at the end of CR; only baseline data were analyzed for the current submission. Results: 190 patients (45.3% = 65; 76.8% male; 51.1% retired; 40.0% obese; 44.7% had a myocardial infarction) at baseline had = 3 valid days (i.e., = 10 hours of wear time / day) were included in the analysis. Total minutes of MVPA for the week recorded in bouts = 10 minutes were dichotomized into 0 = = 150 minutes / week and 1 = = 150 minutes / week. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analyses showed that 6998 steps per day produced a sensitivity of .94 and specificity of .21 with an area under the curve of .90. Discussion: CR patients who engage in 6998 steps per day are likely meeting the 150 minute / week MVPA recommendation. Future studies need to replicate the current findings and determine whether the 6998 steps per day recommendation holds true for various sub-groups (e.g., males vs. females). Acknowledgments: Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".