Adherence to Heart Rate Training Zones in an Exercise Training Program in Adults with Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the effect of exercise intensity on functional capacity in individuals with coronary artery disease, assess adherence to the heart rate training zone (HRTZ), and determine the relationship between trained intensity and functional capacity. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on the medical records of 54 outpatients with coronary artery disease in a public hospital. The prescribed intensity started at 50%–60% of the heart rate reserve, increasing monthly to 70%–80% by the third month. Spearman’s test was used to assess the correlation between improvement in distance in the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT), exercise intensity, and rating of perceived exertion (Borg–RPE). Adherence was classified as ‘below’ when HRTZ was not achieved in any phase of the program, ‘intermediate’ when HR was within the HRTZ for one or two months, and ‘above’ when HR was at or higher than HRTZ ≥ two months. Improvement was tested using t-test and one-way ANOVA. Results: 51.9% of participants had an increase in ISWT of ≥70 m (p < 0.0001). In at least one month, 50.9% trained below HRTZ. The trained intensity did not fall below 8.6% of the prescribed HRTZ minimum threshold. Changes in ISWT were not significantly correlated with exercise intensity (p = 0.87) or Borg–RPE (p = 0.16). Conclusion: While a significant increase in functional capacity was found, considerable heterogeneity in changes were observed. This may, in part, be related to adherence to HRTZ with progressive exercise intensity and to the variability in exercise volume in cardiovascular 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".