MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019303331 · doi:10.1186/s12872-020-01481-6

Cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and quality of life of patients with heart failure undergoing a functional training program: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

2020· article· en· W3019303331 on OpenAlex
Daniela Meirelles do Nascimento, Karina Costa Machado, Patrícia Martins Bock, Marco Aurélio Lumertz Saffi, Lívia Adams Goldraich, Anderson Donelli da Silveira, Nadine Clausell, Beatriz D. Schaan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cardiovascular Disorders · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMedicineHeart failurePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)VO2 maxPopulationExercise intoleranceCardiorespiratory fitnessAerobic exerciseAngiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHeart rateCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exercise intolerance is a common finding in heart failure that generates a vicious cycle in which the individual starts to limit his activities even more due to progressive fatigue. Regular physical exercise can increase the cardiopulmonary exercise capacity of these individuals. A new approach to physical exercise, known as functional training, could improve the oxygen consumption and quality of life of patients with heart failure; however, there is no information about the effect of this modality of exercise in this patient population. This randomized trial will compare the effects of 36 sessions of functional training versus strength training in heart failure patients. METHODS: This randomized parallel-design examiner-blinded clinical trial includes individuals of both sexes aged ≥40 years receiving regular follow-up at a single academic hospital. Subjects will be randomly allocated to an intervention group (for 12-week functional training) or an active comparator group (for 12-week strength training). The primary outcomes will be the difference from baseline to the 3-month time point in peak oxygen consumption on cardiopulmonary exercise testing and quality of life assessed by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures will include functionality assessed by the Duke Activity Status Index and gait speed test; peripheral and inspiratory muscular strength, assessed by hand grip and manovacuometry testing, respectively; endothelial function by brachial artery flow-mediated dilation; lean body mass by arm muscle circumference; and participant adherence to the exercise programs classified as a percentage of the prescribed exercise dose. DISCUSSION: The functional training program aims to improve the functional capacity of the individual using exercises that relate to his specific physical activity transferring gains effectively to one's daily life. In this context, we believe that that functional training can increase the cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and quality of life of patients with heart failure. The trial has been recruiting patients since October 2017. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03321682. Registered on October 26, 2017.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.239 · 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