MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045384538 · doi:10.1097/hcr.0000000000000512

Comprehensive Cardiac Rehabilitation Effectiveness in a Middle-Income Setting

2020· article· en· W3045384538 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorYork University
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyRehabilitationInternal medicineIntention-to-treat analysisAerobic exercise

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The impact of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (CCR) in Latin America is not well known. Herein, the pre-specified tertiary outcomes of a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) trial are reported: disease-related knowledge, depressive symptoms, and heart-health behaviors (exercise, diet, and smoking). METHODS: This was a single-blinded, single-center (Brazil) randomized trial with three parallel arms: CCR (exercise + education) versus exercise-only CR versus wait-list control. Eligible patients were randomized in blocks of four with 1:1:1 concealed allocation. The CR program was 6 mo long. Participants randomized to exercise-only CR received 36 exercise classes; the CCR group also received 24 educational sessions, including a workbook. All outcomes were assessed at pre-test and 6-mo later (blinded). Analysis of covariance was performed by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP). RESULTS: A total of 115 (89%) patients were randomized; 93 (81%) were retained. There were significant improvements in knowledge with CCR (ITT [51.2 ± 11.9 pre and 60.8 ± 13.2 post] and PP; P < .01), with significantly greater knowledge with CCR versus control (ITT mean difference [MD] = 9.5, 95% CI, 2.3-16.8) and CCR vs exercise-only CR at post-test (ITT MD = 6.8, 95% CI, 0.3-14.0). There were also significant improvements in self-reported exercise with CCR (ITT [13.7 ± 15.8 pre and 32.1 ± 2 5.7 post] and PP; P < .001), with significantly greater exercise with CCR versus control at post-test (ITT MD = 7.6, 95% CI, 3.8-11.4). Also, there were significant improvements in diet with CCR (PP: 3.4 ± 7.5 pre and 8.0 ± 7.0 post; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In this first-ever randomized trial of CR for coronary artery disease in Latin America, the benefits of CCR have been supported.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.303 · 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