P5436Does cardiac rehabilitation improve functional, independence, frailty and emotional outcomes following trans catheter aortic valve replacement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVI) is often undertaken in the oldest frailest cohort of patients undergoing cardiac interventions. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the routine recommendation of CR in this population. Purpose: We undertook a pilot trial of CR following TAVI to inform the feasibility and design of a future fully powered randomised trial. Method: We screened patients undergoing TAVI at our institution between June 2016 and February 2017 and randomised selected patients post-TAVI to either standard of care alone (control group) or standard of care plus exercise based CR (CR group). We assessed recruitment and attrition rates, uptake of CR and explored changes in the 6 minute walk test, the Nottingham Activities of Daily Living, Fried and Edmonton Frailty scores and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score, from baseline (30 days post TAVI) to 3 and 6 months post randomisation. Results: Of 82 patients screened undergoing TAVI, 52 met the inclusion criteria and 27 were recruited (3 patients/month) and randomised (14 control, 13 CR,). In the CR group, 10/13 (77%) patients completed the prescribed course of 6 sessions of CR. No significant differences were seen between SOC and CR at 3 or 6-months in 6 minute walk test, the Nottingham Activities of Daily Living, Fried and Edmonton Frailty scores and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".