A Comparative Assessment to Evaluate Enhanced External Counter Pulsation Effect on Physical Profile and Quality of Life in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Coronary Heart Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to assess the effect of Enhanced External Counter Pulsation (EECP) on physical profile and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in diabetic and nondiabetic Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) patients. This pretest-posttest designed prospective study was conducted among 163 diabetic and nondiabetic coronary heart disease patients in the SAAOL Heart Center, New Delhi. The physical profile of study subjects was assessed through Cooper's 12 minutes' walk test, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina scale and Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnea scale. The HRQoL of subjects was assessed using SF-36 (short form) and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) scale. A significant improvement was observed in blood pressure, heart rate, SpO 2 , VO 2 max, CCS angina and MRC score in both the groups from baseline to 12 months. Significant improvement was also observed in both the scales of HRQoL after EECP treatment at 12 months follow up in all the health domains of SF-36 & SAQ scale with special reference to angina severity and angina stability improvement. In conclusion, EECP is an effective non-invasive therapy to treat diabetic and nondiabetic CHD patients. This non-invasive procedure may improve the physical functional capacity, angina, dyspnea and overall HRQoL of diabetic and nondiabetic CHD patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".