Effect of an aerobic exercise program on cardiac remodeling and functional capacity in patients with stroke: CRONuS trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Aerobic exercise training leads to cardiovascular changes and improves cardiovascular performance and functional capacity after a stroke. However, the effect of aerobic exercise on cardiac remodeling in patients with stroke has been poorly explored. This study aimed to investigate the effects of a physical exercise program on morphofunctional echocardiographic variables and the functional capacity of post-stroke patients.Methods This randomized, controlled clinical trial included patients with stroke, categorized into the control group (CG), conventional physiotherapeutic care, and intervention group (IG). The IG underwent a cardiovascular rehabilitation program consisting of warm-up, aerobic exercise, and muscle cooling. Both conventional and test interventions lasted 45 min, three times a week for 16 weeks. The patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography, a 6-minute walk test, neurological and nutritional evaluation, laboratory tests, and QoL assessment initially and at 16 weeks after the intervention.Results The IG showed significant reduction in the following morphological echocardiographic variables compared to the CG after intervention: diastolic thicknesses of the posterior wall (p = 0.0001) and interventricular septum (p = 0.004), relative wall thickness (p = 0.001), left ventricular mass (LVM, p < 0.001), LVM index (p < 0.0001), and left atrial diameter (p = 0.003). Regarding systolic and diastolic functions, the IG showed a significant increase in LV ejection fraction (p = 0.001) and tricuspid ring systolic excursion (p = 0.0002), and a reduction in the left atrial volume index (p = 0.001) and E/E’ ratio (p = 0.01) compared to the CG. In addition, the IG showed an increase in the distance covered compared to the CG after the intervention (p = 0.04).Conclusions The cardiovascular rehabilitation program improved the cardiac morphological and functional parameters and had a positive impact on the functional capacity of patients with chronic ischemic stroke.Trial registration REBEC, RBR-4wk4b3. Registered on 19 September 2016.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".