Myocardial Infarction Injury in Patients with Chronic Lung Disease Entering Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Frequency and Association with Heart Rate Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Myocardial infarction (MI) remains under‐recognized in chronic lung disease (CLD) patients. Rehabilitation health professionals need accessible clinical measurements to identify the presence of prior MI in order to determine appropriate training prescription. Objectives To estimate prior MI in CLD patients entering a pulmonary rehabilitation program, as well as its association with heart rate parameters such as resting heart rate and chronotropic response index. Design Retrospective cohort design. Setting Pulmonary rehabilitation outpatient clinic in a tertiary care university‐affiliated hospital. Patients Eighty‐five CLD patients were studied. Methods Electrocardiograms at rest and peak cardiopulmonary exercise testing, performed before pulmonary rehabilitation, were analyzed. Electrocardiographic evidence of prior MI, quantified by the Cardiac Infarction Injury Score (CIIS), was contrasted with reported myocardial events and then correlated with resting heart rate and chronotropic response index parameters. Main outcome measurements CIIS, resting heart rate, and chronotropic response index. Results Sixteen CLD patients (19%) demonstrated electrocardiographic evidence of prior MI, but less than half (8%) had a reported MI history (P < .05). The Cohen's kappa test revealed poor level of agreement between CIIS and medical records (kappa = 0.165), indicating that prior MI diagnosis was under‐reported in the medical records. Simple and multiple regression analyses showed that resting heart rate but not chronotropic response index was positively associated with CIIS in our population (R2 = 0.29, P < .001). CLD patients with a resting heart rate higher than 80 beats/min had approximately 5 times higher odds of having prior MI, as evidenced by a CIIS ≥ 20. Conclusions CLD patients entering pulmonary rehabilitation are at risk of unreported prior MI. Elevated resting heart rate appears to be an indicator of prior MI in CLD patients; therefore, careful adjustment of training intensity is recommended under these circumstances. Level of Evidence III
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".