Effectiveness of Device-Guided Breathing in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) is one of the most life-restricting coronary artery diseases, and symptom relief is the main goal in CCS patients who suffer from angina. Objectives: To assess the potential benefits of device-guided breathing in CCS patients with angina in this randomized, controlled, single-blinded study. Methods: Fifty-one patients with CCS received device-guided breathing for 7 days/8 weeks. Exercise capacity [exercise stress test], cardiac function [transthoracic echocardiography], and angina severity [Canadian Cardiovascular Society Classification] were evaluated initially and after the training. Device-guided breathing was performed at the lowest resistance of the device (POWERbreathe® Classic LR) for the control group (n = 17). The low load training group (LLTG; n = 18) and high load training group (HLTG; n = 16) were trained at 30% and 50% of maximal inspiratory pressure. Baseline characteristics were compared using one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis test. Categorical data were compared using the chi-square test. ANCOVA was performed to compare changes between three groups. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Metabolic equivalent values were significantly improved in both HLTG and LLTG groups (p < 0.001, p = 0.003). The Duke treadmill score significantly improved and shifted to low-risk both in the HLTG (p < 0.001) and LLTG (p < 0.001) groups. Angina severity significantly alleviated after the training in both HLTG and LLTG groups (p < 0.001, p = 0.002). Conclusions: An 8-week long program of short-term respiratory muscle training provided positive gains in exercise capacity and angina severity in CCS patients with angina. The effects of long-term training programs on CCS patients should be investigated clinically because of the possibility of helping to decrease the need for invasive treatments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".