Cardiovascular and Risk Factor Outcomes for Ethnic Minorities From Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) among ethnic minorities for cardiovascular risk factors (systolic blood pressure [BP], exercise capacity, lipids, body fat), mortality, and morbidity, and compare outcomes to majority reference groups. REVIEW METHODS: We searched electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Library) from inception until September 2023 for studies reporting CR outcomes of ethnic minorities. Meta-analyses were conducted for data that could be pooled using random effects model. Data that were not suitable for meta-analysis were synthesized and reported narratively. SUMMARY: Thirteen studies with a total of 132 109 participants (10 494 from ethnic minorities [8% of total participants]) were included. Patients from ethnic minority groups made improvements in several outcomes post-CR. These outcomes were equivalent to majority groups for systolic BP (Mean Difference [MD] = -0.69: 95% CI, -1.62 to 0.24 mmHg), maximal exercise capacity (MD = -0.10: 95% CI, -0.63 to 0.44 metabolic equivalents of task), total cholesterol (MD = 0.16: 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.33 mmol/L), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD = 0.25: 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.54 mmol/L). However, ethnic minorities achieved less improvements than the majority for body mass index (MD = -0.31: 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.14 kg/m2) and waist circumference (MD = -1.50: 95% CI, -2.33 to -0.68 cm). Narrative synthesis indicated equivalent outcomes for minorities for all-cause mortality and mean cholesterol, with worse risk of hospitalization at 1 year. Patients from ethnic minorities attending CR achieve equivalent benefits to majority counterparts for multiple risk factors and potentially mortality and morbidity, therefore CR should be strongly promoted. Individual tailoring may be needed to address adiposity and exercise capacity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".