Sex and Age Differences in Anxiety and Depression Levels Before and After Aerobic Interval Training in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate sex and age differences in anxiety and depression among patients with cardiovascular disease at baseline and following aerobic interval training (AIT)-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and secondarily to compare dropout rates between sexes and age groups. METHODS: Participants were younger (≤44 yr), middle-aged (45-64 yr), and older adults (≥65 yr). The AIT protocol consisted of: 4 × 4-min of high-intensity work periods at 85-95% peak heart rate (HR) interspersed with 3 min of lower-intensity intervals at 60-70% peak HR, twice weekly for 10 wk. Anxiety and depression were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at baseline and following CR. RESULTS: At baseline, of 164 participants (32% female), 14 (35% female) were younger, 110 (33% female) were middle-aged, and 40 (30% female) were older. Older adults reported lower anxiety levels versus younger (4.4 ± 2.6 vs 7.8 ± 3.4 points, P = .008) and middle-aged adults (4.4 ± 2.6 vs 6.1 ± 3.6 points, P = .05). Baseline depression levels did not differ between age groups (P = .749). All age groups experienced a reduction in anxiety (younger =-2.67; middle-aged =-1.40; older =-0.85) and depression (younger =-1.50; middle-aged =-0.83; older =-0.70) levels following CR. Differences in dropout rates were observed between age groups (χ2[1] = 13.4, P = .001). Within each age group, 43% (female n = 2, male n = 4) of younger, 10% (female n = 8, male n = 3) of middle-aged, and 2.5% (female n = 0, male n = 1) of older participants dropped out. CONCLUSIONS: Younger and middle-aged adults experience higher levels of anxiety upon entry into CR compared with older adults. Cardiac rehabilitation was associated with significant reductions in anxiety and depression severity, yet dropout rates were highest among younger adults.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".