Comparing the Effectiveness of 2 Cardiac Rehabilitation Exercise Therapy Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in Canada, highlighting the critical role of disease prevention and risk reduction programs. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a key component of comprehensive cardiovascular care. Currently, more than 200 CR programs are established across the country, varying in duration, number of in-person supervised exercise sessions, and recommendations for exercise frequency at-home. In an increasingly cost-conscious healthcare environment, the effectiveness of healthcare services must be consistently reevaluated. This study evaluates the impact of 2 CR programs implemented by the Northern Alberta Cardiac Rehabilitation Program, by comparing peak metabolic equivalents achieved by study participants in each program. We hypothesize that our "hybrid" CR program, which is structured as an 8-week program with weekly in-person exercise sessions and a prescribed home exercise program, has patient outcomes similar to those of our "traditional" CR program, which required biweekly in-person exercise sessions over the course of 5 weeks. The results of this study may have implications for evaluating how to minimize barriers to both rehabilitation participation and long-term effectiveness of CR programs. The results may help inform the structuring and funding of future rehabilitation programs.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".