MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3010228

Quality of life and psychosocial measures influenced by exercise modality in patients with coronary artery disease.

2015· article· en· W3010228 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Marzolini, Walter Swardfager, David A. Alter, Pok-Ja Oh, Yaxian Tan, Jack M. Goodman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialCoronary artery diseaseQuality of life (healthcare)RehabilitationDepression (economics)Aerobic exercisePhysical therapyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to prescribing resistance training (RT) combined with aerobic training (AT) for psychosocial and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is unclear. AIM: To compare the effects of AT combined with RT (1 versus 3 sets) versus AT alone on HRQOL and psychosocial outcomes. DESIGN: Subjects (N.=72) were randomized to AT (5 d∙wk-1) or AT (3 d∙wk-1) with either 1 set (AT/RT1) or 3 sets (AT/RT3) of RT performed 2 d∙wk-1. SETTING: Outpatient Cardiac Rehabilitation Program. POPULATION: Subjects with coronary artery disease. METHODS: HRQOL and psychosocial parameters were assessed before and after 29 weeks of training by questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty-three subjects (mean±SD age 60.6±10.6 years) completed training. There was a group effect for change in self-efficacy of lower body physical activity tasks (P=0.03) with significantly greater improvement for AT/RT3 than AT alone (17.5±16.6% vs. 3.2±12.8% respectively, p=0.04). Lower body self-efficacy improved for AT/RT1 (15.5±13.8%, p<0.001) but not for AT alone (P=0.2). Self-efficacy for upper body tasks improved with AT/RT3 (18.2±19.9%, P=0.003) and AT/RT1 training (12.6±15.8%, P=0.005) but not with AT alone (8.3±16.1%, P=0.1). AT/RT3 and AT/RT1 training yielded improvements in depression score (-4.0±7.7, P=0.04 and -3.0±5.1, P=0.02 respectively) but not with AT alone (-0.5±4.7, P=0.71). The improvement from baseline in physical HRQOL score (MOS, SF-36) averaged 8.2±11.2% for AT (P=0.04), 10.4±11.9% for AT/RT1 (P=0.006) and 12.0±12.9% for AT/RT3 (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Both AT+RT groups with either 1 or 3 sets (AT 3 d∙wk-1and RT 2 d∙wk-1) each yield more pronounced psychosocial and HRQOL adaptations than AT alone (5 d∙wk-1). RT prescription beyond 1 set may further augment selected parameters in cardiac patients. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: These results provide further rationale to develop combined AT+RT regimens for individuals with coronary artery disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→