Randomised controlled trial in women with coronary artery disease investigating the effects of aerobic interval training versus moderate intensity continuous exercise in cardiac rehabilitation: CAT versus MICE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The primary aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of aerobic interval training (AIT) versus moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICE) on aerobic exercise capacity (V̇O2peak), in women only, with coronary artery disease (CAD) and who were referred to a large, 24-week outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme. Secondary objectives included comparing the effects of AIT versus MICE on cognition, cardiovascular risk profile, adherence and quality of life before and after the 24-week CR programme. Methods Thirty-one postmenopausal women with CAD (left ventricular ejection fraction >35%; 68.2±9.2 years of age; V̇O2peak: 19.1±3.5 mL kg -1 min -1 ) were randomised to 24 weeks of usual care MICE (60%–80% of V̇O2peak, five times per week) or AIT (four 4-min intervals at 90%–95% of peak heart rate, three times per week+two times per week usual care MICE). Differences between and within groups were assessed using independent samples t-tests and paired samples t-tests, respectively. Treatment effect analysis of AIT on V̇O2peak and secondary outcomes was determined using analysis of covariance with baseline values as covariates. Results A randomised controlled trial study design was unfeasible in this female CAD population. Unanticipated challenges in recruitment availability and eligibility, in combination with a 59% and 50% attrition rate in the AIT and MICE group, respectively, rendered this study underpowered to detect differences between groups. The per protocol treatment effect analysis, however, unveiled a 0.95 mL kg -1 min -1 improvement in V̇O2peak in response to AIT over MICE (p<0.001). Conclusions Further research is necessary to elucidate the patient profile and circumstances under which the potential for the implementation of AIT may be individualised, and offered in clinical practice. Trial registration NCT02966158 .
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".