Effects of exercise interventions on cardiovascular health in individuals with chronic, motor complete spinal cord injury: protocol for a randomised controlled trial [Cardiovascular Health/Outcomes: Improvements Created by Exercise and education in SCI (CHOICES) Study]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent studies demonstrate that cardiovascular diseases and associated complications are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Abnormal arterial stiffness, defined by a carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) ≥10 m/s, is a recognised risk factor for heart disease in individuals with SCI. There is a paucity of studies assessing the efficacy of conventional training modalities on arterial stiffness and other cardiovascular outcomes in this population. Therefore, this study aims to compare the efficacy of arm cycle ergometry training (ACET) and body weight-supported treadmill training (BWSTT) on reducing arterial stiffness in individuals with chronic motor complete, high-level (above the sixth thoracic segment) SCI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, clinical trial. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned (1:1) into either ACET or BWSTT groups. Sixty participants with chronic (>1 year) SCI will be recruited from three sites in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto and Hamilton). Participants in each group will exercise three times per week up to 30 min and 60 min for ACET and BWSTT, respectively, over the period of 6 months. The primary outcome measure will be change in arterial stiffness (cfPWV) from baseline. Secondary outcome measures will include comprehensive assessments of: (1) cardiovascular parameters, (2) autonomic function, (3) body composition, (4) blood haematological and metabolic profiles, (5) cardiorespiratory fitness and (6) quality of life (QOL) and physical activity outcomes. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months (only QOL and physical activity outcomes). Statistical analyses will apply linear-mixed modelling to determine the training (time), group (ACET vs BWSTT) and interaction (time × group) effects on all outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from all three participating sites. Primary and secondary outcome data will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and widely disseminated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01718977; Pre-results. TRIAL STATUS: Recruitment for this study began on January 2013 and the first participant was randomized on April 2013. Recruitment stopped on October 2018.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.008 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".