Cardiac rehabilitation following coronary artery dissection: recommendations and patient considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: : Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a multidisciplinary intervention for secondary prevention, improving functional capacity, enhancing quality of life, and improving psychosocial wellbeing in broad range of cardiovascular disease. It has been well studied over a number of years and is a Class I recommendation in multiple guidelines. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the usefulness of CR in patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD). AREAS COVERED: : This narrative review aims to give an overview of the evidence underpinning CR as well as the pathophysiological mechanisms of SCAD and how they relate to exercise and shear stress. Furthermore, the evidence of the usefulness of CR in the SCAD population will be reviewed. EXPERT OPINION: : Traditional CR programs are safe and effective in SCAD cohorts, however SCAD specific CR (SCAD-CR) has significant benefits including reductions in MACE. The principles of SCAD-CR should be applied to any CR for SCAD patients for optimal outcomes and minimization of harm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".