MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401436100 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.124.046564

Cardiorespiratory Fitness Benefits of High-Intensity Interval Training After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4401436100 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Moncion, Lynden Rodrigues, Bernat de las Heras, Kenneth S. Noguchi, Elise Wiley, Janice J. Eng, Marilyn MacKay-Lyons, Shane N. Sweet, Alexander Thiel, Joyce Fung, Paul W. Stratford, Julie Richardson, Maureen J. MacDonald, Marc Roig, Ada Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalDalhousie UniversityJewish Rehabilitation HospitalMcGill UniversityGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessInterval trainingHigh-intensity interval trainingHeart rateRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyConfidence intervalStroke (engine)Blood pressureCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence supports the effects of short-interval high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (V̇O 2 peak) after stroke. We aimed to compare the effects of 12 weeks of short-interval HIIT versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on V̇O 2 peak, cardiovascular risk factors, and mobility outcomes among individuals ≥6 months poststroke. METHODS: This study was a multi-site, 12-week randomized controlled trial (NCT03614585) with an 8-week follow-up. Participants were randomized into 3 d/wk of HIIT (10×1 minute 80%–100% heart rate reserve interspersed with 1 minute 30% heart rate reserve [19 minutes]) or MICT (20–30 minutes 40%–60% heart rate reserve). Secondary outcomes of the trial, including V̇O 2 peak, cardiovascular risk factors (carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, blood pressure, and waist-hip ratio), and mobility (6-minute walk test, 10 m gait speed), were reported. Linear mixed model analyses with a group×study time point interaction evaluated between-group differences. RESULTS: Of the 305 potential participants, 82 consented (mean [SD] age 64.9 [9.3] years, 32 females [39%], 1.8 [1.2] years poststroke) and were randomized to HIIT (n=42, mean [SD] baseline V̇O 2 peak 17.3 [5.9] mL/kg·min) or MICT (n=40, mean [SD] baseline V̇O 2 peak 17.2 [6.0] mL/kg·min). Participants attended 82% of visits (n=2417/2952). No adverse events occurred during the study period. A significant group×study time point interaction was found (χ 2 =8.46; P =0.015) for V̇O 2 peak at 12 weeks (mean difference, 1.81 [95% CI, 0.58–3.04]; P =0.004) whereby the HIIT group had greater gains in V̇O 2 peak (∆3.52 mL/kg·min [95% CI, 2.47–4.57]; P <0.001) compared with the MICT group (∆1.71 mL/kg·min [95% CI, 0.55–2.86]; P =0.001). There was no between-group difference in V̇O 2 peak (mean difference, 1.08 [95% CI, −0.26 to 2.42]; P =0.11) at 8-week follow-up. No group×study time point interactions were found for cardiovascular risk factors or mobility outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Short-interval HIIT may be an effective alternative to MICT for improving V̇O 2 peak at 12 weeks postintervention. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03614585.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207