Sex differences in psychosocial and cardiometabolic health among patients completing cardiac rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current programs of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) typically provide a standardized approach to all patients. We examined whether CR would produce similar improvements in psychosocial and cardiometabolic health indicators in women compared with men. The records of patients who completed a 3-month outpatient CR program were examined. We compared health-related quality of life (i.e., Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores), anxiety, depression, and cardiometabolic health indicators between women and men completing CR. Of the 591 participants who completed CR, 155 (26.2%) were women and 436 (73.8%) were men. At baseline, women were older (64 ± 9 vs. 62 ± 9 years, p = 0.045), had lower PCS (39.5 ± 8.1 vs. 43.9 ± 7.8 points, p < 0.001), and MCS (46.6 ± 10.8 vs. 49.4 ± 9.8 points, p = 0.003) scores, experienced elevated levels of anxiety (6.4 ± 4.0 vs. 5.2 ± 4.0 points, p = 0.001) and depression (4.7 ± 3.5 vs. 3.6 ± 3.3 points, p = 0.001), and had higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (2.1 ± 0.9 vs. 1.7 ± 0.7 mmol/L, p < 0.001) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (1.4 ± 0.4 vs. 1.1 ± 0.3 mmol/L, p < 0.001) concentrations when compared with men. Following CR, women showed smaller improvements in percent body mass (+1.1% ± 10.1% vs. −2.1% ± 9.7%, p = 0.002) and PCS scores (3.0 ± 8.1 vs. 6.3 ± 7.5 points, p < 0.001) when compared with men. Considering poorer psychosocial health at baseline and smaller improvements in health-related quality of life in women when compared with men, more specific CR strategies addressing the particular needs of women are required to improve their health status and reduce the risk of secondary cardiac events.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".