Young investigator award session III- Exercise Basic & Translational Research (EBTR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topic: Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations -Other Background: Traditional cardiac rehabilitation programs may not satisfy the needs or interests of women with heart disease.Aerobic interval training (AIT) has been shown to produce similar and even greater improvements in physical and mental health when compared to moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE) in patients with heart disease.Little is known regarding the impact of AIT in women with heart disease.Purpose: Using a matched case-control design, the purpose of this study was to examine the impact of AIT in comparison to MICE on physical and mental health in women with heart disease.We hypothesized that AIT delivered to women with heart disease within a cardiac rehabilitation program would produce similar or greater improvements in physical and mental health outcomes when compared to MICE.Methods: Women attended (1) AIT (45 mins: 10-min warm-up, 30 mins of alternating high [4 mins at 85-95% HRpeak] and low [3 mins at 60-70% HRpeak] intervals, 10-min cool-down) 2x/week for 10 weeks, the first two of the 10 weeks served as a familiarization period for AIT, or (2) MICE (60 mins: 10-min warm-up, 35 mins of aerobic conditioning, 15-min cool-down) 2x/week for 8 weeks.Height, body mass, waist circumference, resting blood pressure and heart rate and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were assessed and graded exercise tests were conducted (AIT only).Descriptive statistics were used to report the measures and their variations, and general linear model procedures for repeated measures were used to examine differences between the AIT and MICE groups.Results: Fifty women with heart disease (AIT, n=25; MICE, n=25) (meanÆSD: 58Æ9 years; body mass index: 28.3Æ6.3kg/m2; waist circumference: 93.7Æ13.6 cm; resting blood pressure: 122Æ18/73Æ9 mmHg [normotensive due to medical management]; resting HR: 70Æ14 bpm) participated.The AIT group exercised, on average, at 86% and 69% of age predicted HRpeak during the high and low intensity intervals, respectively, and attended 18 of 20 (90%) exercise sessions.The MICE group exercised, on average, at 74% of age predicted HRpeak, and attended 15 of 16 (94%) exercise sessions.Significant improvements in waist circumference (AIT: -5.1Æ7.7 cm; MICE: -2.4Æ5.1 cm), resting diastolic blood pressure (AIT: -3.5Æ7.0 mmHg; MICE: -5.4Æ8.9 mmHg), anxiety (AIT: -2.0Æ3.5 points; MICE: -1.6Æ3.2 points), depression (AIT: -0.6Æ3.2 points; MICE: -1.4Æ2.2 points) and VO2peak (AIT: +2.1Æ2.6 mL/kg/min) from baseline to follow-up were observed (ps<0.05).No significantly different changes in physical or mental health outcomes were observed between the AIT and MICE groups (ps>0.05).Conclusions: AIT and MICE led to statistical and clinical improvements in physical and mental health outcomes for women with heart disease.The shorter AIT program requiring 15 minutes less each session may be considered an advantage to women with heart disease who often cite time restrictions as a barrier to cardiac rehabilitation.
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 | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.179 | 0.126 |
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".