Including Patients With Stroke in Cardiac Rehabilitation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 13 million cases of stroke are occurring annually worldwide. Approximately a quarter of these strokes are recurrent strokes, and there is compelling evidence of the benefit of supervised exercise and risk factor modification programming in the secondary prevention of these strokes. However, there is insufficient time in inpatient and outpatient stroke rehabilitation for focused exercise interventions. General lifestyle interventions on their own, without guidance and supervision, are insufficient for improving physical activity levels. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a setting where cardiac patients, and increasingly stroke patients, receive comprehensive secondary prevention programming, including structured exercise. Unfortunately, not all CR programs accept referrals for people following a stroke and for those that do, only a few patients participate. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to report the barriers and facilitators to improving linkage between health services, with a focus on increasing access to CR. In the next two decades, it is projected that there will be a marked increase in stroke prevalence globally. Therefore, there is an urgent need to create cross-program collaborations between hospitals, outpatient stroke rehabilitation, CR, and community programs. Improving access and removing disparities in access to evidence-based exercise treatments would positively affect the lives of millions of people recovering from stroke.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it