Evaluation of Qatar’s First Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: A Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are few studies on the impact of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), where the burden of risk factors and context is somewhat different from Western countries where much of the evidence is derived. Objective: To evaluate patient engagement in, and outcomes associated with, participation in Qatar's first and only CR program, from inception. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study of patients referred to Heart Hospital's CR program from January 2013-September, 2018. The program offered 3 sessions/week over 6-12 weeks, depending on patient risk. An initial assessment was performed, and outcomes (i.e., functional capacity, risk factors, and psychosocial well-being (quality of life [SF-36] and depressive symptoms) were re-assessed post-program in those who did not drop-out. Session attendance was recorded. Results: pre and 28.2 ± 5.4 post; p < 0.001), waist circumference (102.8 ± 13.0 cm pre and 101.8 ± 13.2 post; p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein (LDL 1.9 ± 0.9 mmol/L pre and 1.6 ± 0.8 post; p = < 0.001), total cholesterol (3.6 ± 1.1 mmol/L pre and 3.3 ± 0.8 post; p < 0.001), systolic blood pressure (SBP 128.5 ± 17.7 mmHg pre and 123.7 ± 14.8 post; p < 0.001), hemoglobin A1c (6.8 ± 1.6% pre and 6.5 ± 1.3 post; p < 0.001) and depressive symptoms (Cardiac Depression Scale score 78.3 ± 23.9 pre and 66.3 ± 21.3 post; p < 0.001). Improvements on 7 of the 8 quality of life domains were also observed (all p < .05; e.g., physical functioning 68.2 ± 24.0 pre and 74.9 ± 24.4 post). Conclusion: The new Qatari CR program is very engaging to patients, and resulted in clinically significant risk factors (LDL, SBP, and cholesterol) as well as functional capacity and health-related quality of life improvements, which likely translate to reduced morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".