The Impact of Reduced Cardiac Rehabilitation on Maximal Treadmill Exercise Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRPs) remain underutilized partly because of access barriers. We therefore evaluated a CRP with fewer center-based sessions (rCRP) compared with standard CRP (sCRP) with respect to changes in exercise capacity and cardiac risk factors. METHODS: In this randomized controlled noninferiority trial, primary and secondary prevention patients at low and moderate risk were randomized to an sCRP (n = 60) or an rCRP (n = 61). Over 4 months, sCRP and rCRP participants attended 32 and 10 on-site cardiac rehabilitation sessions, respectively. The primary outcome was the difference in the change in exercise capacity from baseline at 4 and 16 months between the groups measured in seconds from a maximal treadmill exercise test. Noninferiority of the rCRP was tested with mixed-effects model analysis with a cut point of 60 seconds for the upper value of the group estimate. RESULTS: Attendance was higher for the rCRP group (97% ± 63% vs 71% ± 22%, P = .002). Over 16 months, exercise test time increased for the sCRP (524 ± 168 to 604 ± 172 seconds, P < .01) and the rCRP (565 ± 183 to 640 ± 192 seconds, P < .01). The rCRP was not inferior to the sCRP regarding changes in treadmill time (48.47 seconds, P = .454). The rCRP was not inferior to the sCRP regarding metabolic and anthropometric risk factors. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that, for a selected group of low-/moderate-risk patients, the number of center-based CRP exercise sessions can be decreased while maintaining reduced cardiovascular risk factors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".