MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976455328 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028749

Effectiveness of combined eccentric and concentric exercise over traditional cardiac exercise rehabilitation programme in patients with chronic heart failure: protocol for a randomised controlled study

2019· article· en· W2976455328 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Plaquevent-Hostache, Julianne Touron, Frédéric Costes, Hélène Perrault, Guillaume Clerfond, Christine Cuenin, Andreea Moisa, M.C. Boiteux, Romain Eschalier, Ruddy Richard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationPhysical therapyEccentricHeart failureEjection fractionVO2 maxPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialExercise intoleranceVentilatory thresholdConcentricHeart rateCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Exercise-based rehabilitation is a standard feature of chronic heart failure management. The effectiveness of eccentric exercise could offer new opportunities for better tailoring rehabilitation programme to patients’ limitations. The goal of the study is to contrast the impact of a mixed eccentric and concentric cycling training programme, to that of conventional concentric cycling rehabilitation in patients with chronic heart failure (peak oxygen consumption (VO 2Peak ) < 15 mL⋅kg - 1 ⋅min - 1 , ejection fraction <40%). Methods and analysis It is a prospective, open, controlled and randomised study (2×25 subjects) carried out in a single centre. Subjects will perform five exercise sessions per week per the randomisation outcome, with the intervention group performing eccentric in three of the five weekly sessions while the control group will perform the five sessions of concentric exercise. Cycling intensity will be the same in both groups and fixed to the power associated with the first ventilatory threshold. Self-management education programme, callisthenics sessions and muscle strength trainings will also be carried out as for any heart failure patient normally included in the rehabilitation programme. The primary outcome will be the change in distance covered during the 6 min walk test. Secondary outcomes will include other physical mobility parameters, functional exercise capacities, quality of life and body composition as well as skeletal muscle properties including mitochondrial function parameters. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the institutional ethics review board (17.079) and the French regulatory authority for research (2017-A00969-44). Adverse events that could occur during the protocol will be reported to the principal investigator. The results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number NCT03716778 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.008
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207