Cardiovascular Prehabilitation in Patients Awaiting Heart Transplantation— Addressing Clinical Needs (the PREHAB HTx Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background To compare the effects of a 12-week PREHAB program and usual care (UC) on functional capacity in adults listed for heart transplantation (HTx). Secondary aims including comparing peak oxygen uptake (VO 2 peak), frailty, physical activity, mental health, cognitive function, quality of life (QoL), and dietary habits. Methods A multi-center RCT. Participants were randomized to prehabilitation (PREHAB) or UC. The 12-week PREHAB program included twice weekly high-intensity interval training (HIIT) sessions on an upright cycle ergometer, a stress management course, and a nutrition workshop. The primary outcome was functional capacity (6-minute walk test [6MWT] distance) from baseline to 12 weeks' follow-up. Secondary outcomes included changes in VO 2 peak, frailty, physical activity, severity of anxiety, depression, and stress, cognitive function, QoL, and dietary habits. Results Trial recruitment began in October 2018 and closed, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in October 2020. Of 128 patients screened, 17 were recruited (age: 44±9 years, 71% male) and 4 were randomized (PREHAB=2, UC=2). Both patients completed PREHAB, and 1 patient completed UC. Reasons for drop-out throughout the trial included: transplanted, medication and device contraindications, commitment and travel constraints, and lack of interest. PREHAB showed potential for improvements in 6MWT distance (Baseline [B]: 427, Follow-up [FU]: 465 m), VO 2 peak (B: 14.9±0.1, FU: 15.8±0.4 mL/kg/min) and QoL using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (B: 41±33, FU: 26±1 points). Conclusions Recruitment for and completion of PREHAB for patients listed for HTx proved challenging. Given wait-time limitations, future research should examine alternative PREHAB programming offered sooner following listing which addresses reported barriers to participation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".