Depression and Physical Activity Post-Cardiac Surgery: 18 Months of Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depressive symptoms post cardiac surgery remains high even 1 year after the operation. However, the relationship between postsurgery long-term depression and physical activity is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to investigate the relationship between depression and physical activity levels in patients during an 18-month follow-up period post cardiac surgery. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with 82.5% men and an average age of 60.3 years were followed up for 18 months in the study. Depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale. Physical activity levels were measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire at 18 months. RESULTS: The most common procedures were cardiac bypass (49.1%) and valve replacement (35.1%). Compared with preoperative levels (14.4 ± 1.5), depression scores were significantly increased immediately post surgery (21.0 ± 1.3, P = .002), decreased at 10 days post discharge (14.4 ± 1.2, P < .001), and increased again at 18 months post discharge (19.0 ± 1.1, P = .01). Physical activity levels, measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, were inversely associated with depression scores. Participation in cardiac rehabilitation did not show a significant relationship with depression scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with higher International Physical Activity Questionnaire scores had lower Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scores, highlighting the potential benefits of physical activity in managing postoperative depression. These findings underscore the importance of promoting physical activity as a potential intervention to improve mental health in patients who had undergone cardiac surgery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".