Sex Differences in Changes in Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Additional Health Outcomes Following Exercise Training in Adults With Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) through exercise training is associated with lower morbidity and mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Smaller CRF improvements have been suggested in females than males with cardiovascular disease following exercise training. This systematic review compared changes in CRF (primary) and additional physical and mental health outcomes following exercise training between females and males with AF. REVIEW METHODS: Five bibliographic databases were searched to identify prospective studies implementing exercise training in patients with AF. The mean difference (MD) in the change following exercise training was compared between sexes using random-effects meta-analyses. SUMMARY: Sex-specific data were obtained from 19 of 63 eligible studies, with 886 participants enrolled in exercise training (n = 259 [29%] females; female: 68 ± 7 years, male: 66 ± 8 years). Exercise training was 6 weeks to 1 year in duration and mostly combined moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic and resistance training, 2 to 6 d/wk. Changes in CRF did not differ between sexes (MD = 0.15: 95% CI, -1.08 to 1.38 mL O2/kg/min; P = .81; I2 = 27%). Severity of AF (MD = 1.00: 95% CI, 0.13-1.87 points; I2 = 0%), general health perceptions (MD = -3.71: 95% CI, -6.88 to -0.55 points; I2 = 22%), and systolic blood pressure (MD = 3.11: 95% CI, 0.14-6.09 mmHg; I2 = 42%) improved less in females than in males. Females may benefit from more targeted exercise training programs given their smaller improvement in several health outcomes than males. However, our findings are largely hypothesis-generating, considering the limited sample size and underrepresentation of females (29% females in our review vs 47% females with AF globally).
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".