Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation as the keystone in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a mainstay of the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. In the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, comprehensive cardiovascular rehabilitation has the highest class of recommendation and level of evidence as an effective method for the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, after myocardial revascularization, with chronic coronary syndrome, for CVD prevention in clinical practice, and in patients with heart failure (HF). This document presents an expert opinion of the Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology Section of the Polish Cardiac Society concerning the definition, goals, target population, organization of rehabilitation services, standard clinical indications and methods of implementation. Moreover, it describes psychosocial risk factors influencing the course of CR and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients undergoing CR. Comprehensive CR is as a process that should be implemented as soon as possible, continued without interruption, and consist of multiple stages. Moreover, it should be tailored to the individual clinical situation and should be accepted by the patient and their family, friends, and caregivers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".