Comparison of functional exercise capacity, quality of life and respiratory and peripheral muscle strength between patients with stable angina and healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We aimed to compare functional exercise capacity, respiratory and peripheral muscle strength, pulmonary function and quality of life between patients with stable angina and healthy controls. Methods We compared 33 patients with stable angina (55.21 ± 6.12 years old, Canada Class II–III, left ventricular ejection fraction: 61.92 ± 7.55) and 30 healthy controls (52.70 ± 4.22 years old). Functional capacity (6-minute walk test (6-MWT)), respiratory muscle strength (mouth pressure device), peripheral muscle strength (dynamometer), pulmonary function (spirometer) and quality of life (Short Form 36 (SF-36)) were evaluated. Results 6-MWT distance (499.20 ± 51.91 m versus 633.05 ± 57.62 m), maximal inspiratory pressure (85.42 ± 20.52 cmH 2 O versus 110.44 ± 32.95 cmH 2 O), maximal expiratory pressure (83.33 ± 19.05 cmH 2 O versus 147.96 ± 54.80 cmH 2 O) and peripheral muscle strength, pulmonary function and SF-36 sub-scores were lower in the angina group versus the healthy controls, respectively. Conclusion Impaired peripheral and respiratory muscle strength, reduction in exercise capacity and quality of life are obvious in patients with stable angina. Therefore, these parameters should be considered in stable angina physiotherapy programmes to improve impairments.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".