Is breathing frequency a potential means for monitoring exercise intensity in people with atrial fibrillation and coronary heart disease when heart rate is mitigated?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Moderate-intensity aerobic exercise is safe and beneficial in atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary heart disease (CHD). Irregular or rapid heart rates (HR) in AF and other heart conditions create a challenge to using HR to monitor exercise intensity. The purpose of this study was to assess the potential of breathing frequency (BF) to monitor exercise intensity in people with AF and CHD without AF. Methods This observational study included 30 AF participants (19 Male, 70.7 ± 8.7 yrs) and 67 non-AF CHD participants (38 Male, 56.9 ± 11.4 yrs). All performed an incremental maximal exercise test with pulmonary gas exchange. Results Peak aerobic power in AF ( $${\dot{\text{V}}}$$ V ˙ O2peak; 17.8 ± 5.0 ml.kg−1.min−1) was lower than in CHD (26.7 ml.kg−1.min−1) (p < .001). BF responses in AF and CHD were similar (BF peak: AF 34.6 ± 5.4 and CHD 36.5 ± 5.0 breaths.min−1; p = .106); at the 1st ventilatory threshold (BF@VT-1: AF 23.2 ± 4.6; CHD 22.4 ± 4.6 breaths.min−1; p = .240). % $${\dot{\text{V}}}$$ V ˙ O2peak at VT-1 were similar in AF and CHD (AF: 59%; CHD: 57%; p = .656). Conclusion With the use of wearable technologies on the rise, that now include BF, this first study provides an encouraging potential for BF to be used in AF and CHD. As the supporting data are based on incremental ramp protocol results, further research is required to assess BF validity to manage exercise intensity during longer bouts of exercise.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".