Cardiac rehabilitation: The emerging role of home-based approaches and telemedicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outpatient cardiac rehabilitation programs provide supervised exercise training in addition to secondary prevention interventions. They are designed to speed recovery from acute cardiovascular events, benefit chronic patients and to improve quality of life. Alternative approaches to the delivery of supervised cardiac rehabilitation include home-based programs, disease management and lifestyle health coaching interventions, and other internet-based case management systems. The effectiveness of home-based programs was evaluated in several randomized trials. There was no evidence of a difference in mortality, reinfarction, revascularization, cardiac-associated hospitalization, or exercise capacity between the two modes of intervention. Other alternatives include community-based group programs and the use of telemedicine. Use of mobile health technologies may further expand cardiac rehabilitation availability. Telehealth exercise cardiac rehabilitation appears to be at least as effective as center-based cardiac rehabilitation in improving modifiable cardiovascular risk factors and functional capacity. It identifies the option of telehealth and the technologic advances to provide more comprehensive, responsive, and interactive interventions for individuals for whom center-based rehabilitation is not feasible. The attractiveness of telemedicine models is the potential to improve participation of patients in structured with its short term and long-term benefits.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".