Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2022 year has been an “active” one for the Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention (JCRP). I have provided a summary of some of the major actions related to JCRP in this column. We welcomed three new Associate Editors, Dr Sherry Grace, Dr Joel Hughes, and Dr Dan Stevens, to our Editorial team along with 6 new Editorial Board Members (replacing members retiring off the Board). All have provided healthy doses of the four E's, Expertise, Energy, Enthusiasm, and Engagement, to JCRP. JCRP was the first, and remains the only, professional journal dedicated to improving multidisciplinary clinical practice and expanding research evidence specific to both Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. In 2022, JCRP also celebrated 15 yr of expanding its scope to include primary Prevention of cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. I am grateful to two of our Editorial Board Members, Dr Diann Gaalema and Dr Charles German, for their work as Guest Editors of the Special Focused Section on Prevention in this issue of JCRP. I am sure you will find the four Invited Reviews informative. I believe they will stimulate clinicians to increase efforts to empower individuals to actively pursue preventive lifestyle practices. We continued to apply feedback from our Editorial Board and our readers to improve the quality of the Journal. In 2022, we included a new submission category for Rapid Reviews of manuscripts previously submitted, but not accepted, to high-impact clinical journals. We added a feature—Key Perspectives—which provides a concise summary of the key message and clinical/research relevance of the manuscript for our readers. We also now require all accepted manuscripts to provide a Visual Abstract, which we use to promote each manuscript on our social media platforms. The dedicated and timely work of our Associate Editors, our Managing Editor, our Content Editor, and our Reviewers has allowed us to shorten the average time from the author submission of a manuscript to JCRP to the first decision provided to authors from 29 d in 2018 to ∼15 d currently. All of this has led to a noticeable improvement in the overall quality of submissions to JCRP, which has resulted in raising the Journal's Impact Factor to 3.646 (top 50th percentile for all Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems journals) and our Cite Score to 3.9 (top 20th percentile for all Rehabilitation journals). I listed the most cited articles from the 39th, 40th, and 41st issues of JCRP in the Table. I encourage you to check out these high-performing articles and the many others in these recent JCRP issues. Table - Most Cited Articles From JCRP Volumes 39, 40, and 41 First Author Institutiona Article Type Key Words Randal J. Thomas1 Mayo Clinic Scientific Statement cardiac rehabilitation; behavior therapy; exercise; patient education Kyle R. Lemay2 University of Ottawa Heart Institute Original Investigation anxiety; cardiovascular diseases; depression; outcome assessment; rehabilitation Richard W. Bohannon3 Campbell University Scientific Review clinimetrics; functional capacity; sit-to-stand test; validity Hon K. Yuen4 University of Alabama at Birmingham Original Investigation active video gaming; dyspnea; exercise capacity; home-based pulmonary rehabilitation; quality of life Anna Rutkowska5 Opole University of Technology Original Investigation chemotherapy; exercise training; lung cancer; pulmonary function tests Salvatore Carbone6 Virginia Commonwealth University Invited Review cardiovascular disease; frailty; handgrip; muscle strength; sarcopenia Biagio Sassone7 University of Ferrara Original Investigation cardioverter-defibrillators; COVID-19; physical activity Jon Ander Jayo-Montoya8 University of the Basque Country Original Investigation cardiorespiratory fitness; exercise design; high-intensity interval training; low-volume training; myocardial infarction Robert Berry9 Henry Ford Hospital Case Series exercise training; heart disease; home-based cardiac rehabilitation; telehealth Andrew H. Lutz10 Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System Original Investigation cardiac rehabilitation; frailty; physical function Rebecca H. Haraf11 Case Western Reserve University Literature Review adaptation; comfort; COVID-19; masking; rehabilitation Sae Young Jae12 University of Seoul Original Investigation C-reactive protein; cardiorespiratory fitness; pneumonia Erik H. Van Iterson13 Cleveland Clinic Commentary facial mask; preventive cardiology; SARS-CoV-2; secondary prevention; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Jenna L. Taylor14 Mayo Clinic Invited Review cardiorespiratory fitness; compliance; coronary artery disease; exercise adherence; feasibility Sherrie Khadanga15 University of Vermont Original Investigation cardiac rehabilitation; secondary prevention aInstitution for the first author. I hope many of you will add your four E's to JCRP in 2023. Lenny Kaminsky, PhD, MAACVPR, FACSM, FAHA
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 | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.219 | 0.136 |
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".