Early mobilization post-myocardial infarction: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bedrest and immobilization following a myocardial infarction (MI) can lead to functional impairment that can persist following hospitalization. Early mobilization (EM) is associated with good functional and clinical outcomes in critical care, medical and surgical settings. However, the impact and current role of EM in post-MI care has not been well-defined. Our objective was to assess the evidence for post-MI mobilization, define current post-MI mobilization practice, and understand perspectives of cardiovascular professionals toward mobilization. A scoping review related to "early mobilization" and "myocardial infarction" was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology. Pubmed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and CINAHL databases were included. Results were categorized into six topic areas. There were 59 references included in the analysis. There was evidence for the effectiveness and safety of earlier mobilization in experimental studies of the pre-revascularization era, but there was a lack of strong evidence for EM in contemporary post-MI care. Mobilization appears to be safe following arterial catheterization and is associated with minimal hemodynamic and respiratory compromise. Most people are delayed in mobilizing post-MI and spend the majority of the initial hospitalization period lying in bed. Only 1 of 7 current major cardiovascular professional societies guidelines recommend EM post-MI. There were no studies exploring the perspectives of cardiovascular professionals toward mobilization. EM may be beneficial in the post-MI care. However, there is an evidence gap for the impact of EM post-MI in the contemporary literature. More robust evidence from randomized clinical trials is required to inform clinicians and influence practice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".