Women and men with coronary heart disease respond similarly to different aerobic exercise training modalities: a pooled analysis of prospective randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to compare cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) parameters, cardiac adaptations, and proportion of responders after different aerobic training programs amongst women and men with coronary heart disease (CHD). Patients with CHD were evaluated with a CPET and echocardiography before and after 3 months of aerobic exercise training. Peak oxygen uptake exercise training response was assessed according to the median peak oxygen uptake change for post- versus pretraining in the whole cohort (stratification non/low responders (NLR) vs. high-responders) and normalized for lean body mass (LBM). Eighty-three CHD patients were included (19 women, 64 men; 27 patients with interval, 19 with continuous, and 37 with combination exercises). Peak oxygen uptake, peak workload normalized for LBM, pulmonary variables (i.e., ventilation and oxygen uptake efficiency slope), and O2 pulse were significantly lower in women versus men. These parameters improved similarly with training in both sexes (p < 0.05). There were no differences in the proportion of NLR among women and men with CHD (7/19 (37%) vs. 35/64 (55%), p = 0.1719). Left ventricular ejection fraction and mean peak early diastolic mitral annulus velocity improved similarly with training in both sexes (p < 0.05). Women and men with CHD have a similar exercise training response regarding key CPET and echocardiographic parameters. The proportion of responders is similar. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03414996, NCT02048696, NCT03443193. Novelty: Cardiopulmonary adaptations to exercise training are similar among CHD men and women. Proportion of peak oxygen uptake for non/low/high responders is similar in CHD men and women. Left ventricular systolic and diastolic function improved similarly after exercise training in CHD men and women.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".