Cardiovascular responses to high‐intensity stair climbing in individuals with coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation leads to improvements in cardiovascular function in individuals with coronary artery disease. The cardiac effects of coronary artery disease (CAD) can be quantified using clinical echocardiographic measures, such as ejection fraction (EF). Measures of cardiovascular function typically only used in research settings can provide additional information and maybe more sensitive indices to assess changes after exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation. These additional measures include endothelial function (measured by flow‐mediated dilation), left ventricular twist, myocardial performance index, and global longitudinal strain. To investigate the cardiovascular response to 12 week of either traditional moderate‐intensity (TRAD) or stair climbing‐based high‐intensity interval (STAIR) exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation using both clinical and additional measures of cardiovascular function in individuals with CAD. Measurements were made at baseline (BL) and after supervised (4wk) and unsupervised (12 week) of training. This study was registered as a clinical trial at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03235674). Participants were randomized into either TRAD ( n = 9, 8M/1F) and STAIR ( n = 9, 8M/1F). There was a training‐associated increase in one component of left ventricular twist: Cardiac apical rotation (TRAD: BL: 5.6 ± 3.3º, 4 week: 8.0 ± 3.9º, 12 week: 6.2 ± 5.1º and STAIR: BL: 5.1 ± 3.6º, 4 week: 7.4 ± 3.9º, 12 week: 7.8 ± 2.8º, p (time) = 0.03, η 2 = 0.20; main effect) and post‐hoc analysis revealed a difference between BL and 4 week ( p = 0.02). There were no changes in any other clinical or additional measures of cardiovascular function. The small increase in cardiac apical rotation observed after 4 weeks of training may indicate an early change in cardiac function. A larger overall training stimulus may be needed to elicit other cardiovascular function changes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".