Comprehensive Cardiac Rehabilitation Effectiveness in a Middle-Income Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".