P2490Comparing a 6 week-high contact frequency to a 12 week-low contact frequency cardiac rehabilitation program in patients with stable coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been proven to reduce patient morbidity and mortality. Several designs have been proposed for the intensity and duration of such programs. Purpose: To compare the effect of a 6 week-high contact frequency (group 1) in comparison to a 12 week-low contact frequency (group 2) CR program in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) after total revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) regarding symptoms, functional capacity, certain laboratory, anthropometric and echocardiographic measurements. Methods: 60 consecutive patients randomized into 2 equal groups. The following was assessed at baseline and at the end of the program: (a) New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) and Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina grading (CCS), body mass index (BMI), resting heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP), (b) echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by Simpson's method of discs, (c) fasting blood sugar (FBS), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), total cholesterol (TC), serum triglycerides (TG), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low density lipoprotein (LDL-C).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".