Effects of arm-crank exercise on cardiovascular function, functional capacity, cognition and quality of life in patients with peripheral artery disease: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arm-crank exercise training (ACT) is an alternative exercise strategy for patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) due to the attenuation of pain symptoms during the exercise, as well as the benefits to functional capacity. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to describe the study protocol to analyze the effects of ACT exercise on cardiovascular function, functional capacity, cognition and quality of life in patients with symptomatic PAD. METHODS: This is a three-armed randomized, prospective, single-blind data collection, single-center, controlled study enrolling 45 patients with symptomatic PAD who will be randomized into 3 intervention groups: walking training (WT), ACT and control group. The WT and ACT will perform 2 sessions/week, 15 to 10 sets of 2 to 5 minutes at values of 13 to 15 on the Borg scale. Before and after 12 weeks of intervention, cardiovascular function (ambulatory blood pressure, office blood pressure, central blood pressure, heart rate variability, arterial stiffness and vascular function), functional capacity (six-minute walk test, 2 minute step test, handgrip test, Walking impairment questionnaire, Walking estimated limitation calculated by history, Baltimore activity scale for intermittent claudication, and short physical performance battery), cognition (executive function and memory), and quality of life (vascular quality of life questionnaire and World Health Organization Quality of Life) will be assessed. RESULTS: This is the first trial to evaluate the effects of ACT on regulatory mechanisms of the cardiovascular system in PAD patients. If the results are as expected, they will provide evidence the ability of ACT to promote cardiovascular benefits in the symptomatic PAD population.
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 | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.008 |
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".