The Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention at 40 Years and Its Role in the Evolution of Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The maturing of a clinical discipline necessitates the ability to document scientific advancements and state-of-the-art reviews with a focus on clinical practice. Such was the case for the field of cardiac rehabilitation in 1981. Whereas a growing body of literature was demonstrating benefits of exercise in cardiac patients with regard to clinical, psychologic, and quality-of-life outcomes,, there were still concerns about the safety of exercise and whether it could be widely adapted in clinical care. Since this was a time period when searches of online databases such as PubMed had not yet been established (began in 1996), there was a great value of concentrating much of the cardiac rehabilitation literature in a single journal.This commentary describes the conceptualization and implementation of the Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention from 1981 to the present and its acceptance as the official journal of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and later the Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation. The commentary also highlights the journal's inclusion in Index Medicus in 1995, its receipt of an impact factor from International Scientific Indexing in 2007, and its publication of many important scientific statements, often in collaboration with major scientific organizations such as the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology.
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 | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".