Effect of Exercise Protocol on Patients undergoing Heart Valve Surgery -Reported Outcomes Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation has been found to improve patient-reported outcome measures and would be beneficial after heart valve surgery. Aim: Evaluate effect of exercise protocol on patients undergoing heart valve surgery -reported outcomes measures. Patients and methods: Research design: A quasi-experimental research design (study/control) was utilized. Sample: A purposeful sample of sixty patients undergoing heart valve surgery from both sexes, patients were randomly assigned into two equal groups. Setting: Cardiothoracic surgery department and outpatient clinic in Assiut University Heart Hospital. Tools: A structured interview questionnaire, Heart QoL questionnaire and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r). Results: High statistically significance (p value <0.001**) was found in the study's findings between study and control group patients in global score of heart QOL after one month (24.83±2&18.33±2.93 respectively) also after three months (41.2±1.42 &32.03±2.8693 respectively). Patients in the study group and those in the control group showed highly significantly difference from one another in terms of overall score of Edmonton Symptom Assessment System after one month of exercise protocol (48.3±7.05 56.67±6.1 respectively) and after three months (8.07±8.25 &15.17±6.64 respectively) with p value (<0.001**). Conclusion: The study's results elucidated that exercise protocol improved patients reported outcomes measures as quality of life and symptoms in study group patients in comparison with control group patients. Recommendations: Comprehensive Arabic guidebook about exercise training through perioperative valve surgery should be easy to access by patients to help in improvement in patient reported outcome measures.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".