Effects of interval training on risk markers for arrhythmic death: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effects of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training on risk markers of arrhythmic death in patients who recently suffered from an acute coronary syndrome. Design: Double-blind (patient and evaluator) randomized controlled trial. Setting: Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Centre (EPIC Centre) of the Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Canada. Subjects: A total of 43 patients were randomized following an acute coronary syndrome. Interventions: Patients were assigned to either high-intensity interval training (n = 18) or isocaloric moderate-intensity continuous training (n = 19), three times a week for a total of 36 sessions. Main measures: Heart rate recovery for 5 minutes, heart rate variability for 24 hours, occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias, and QT dispersion were measured before and after the 36 sessions of training. Results: Among the 43 patients randomized, 6 participants in the high-intensity interval training group stopped training for reasons unrelated to exercise training and were excluded from the analyses. Heart rate recovery improved solely in the high-intensity interval training group, particularly at the end of recovery period ( p < 0.05). There were no differences in heart rate variability, occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias, or QT dispersion parameters between the groups at study end. Conclusion: Despite the lack of power to detect any large difference between the two interventions with respect to risk markers of arrhythmic death, high-intensity interval training appears safe and may be more effective at improving heart rate recovery relative to moderate-intensity continuous training in our patients following acute coronary syndrome.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".