MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413490166 · doi:10.1016/j.bjpt.2025.101260

ASSOBRAFIR clinical practice guidelines in cardiovascular physical therapy: Exercise-based interventions in outpatient rehabilitation programs for heart failure

2025· review· en· W4413490166 on OpenAlexaff
Marlus Karsten, Giulliano Gardenghi, Alessandra Choqueta Toledo Arruda, Aparecida Maria Catai, Ariany Marques Vieira, Cinara Stein, Cintia Laura Pereira de Araújo, Danielle Aparecida Gomes Pereira, Darlan Laurício Matte, Fabiola Maria Ferreira da Silva, Luís Fernando Deresz, Gabriela Lima de Melo Ghisi, Gaspar R. Chiappa, Graciele Sbruzzi, Graziella França Bernardelli Cipriano, Gustavo dos Santos Ribeiro, Juliana Goulart Prata Oliveira Milani, Laura Maria Tomazi Neves, Leonardo Calegari, Letícia de Araújo Morais, Lucas Capalonga, Pedro Dal Lago, Priscila Furtado Campos, Rafael Michel de Macedo, Rodrigo Della Méa Plentz, Sara Lúcia Silveira de Menezes, Vicente Paulo Ponte Souza Filho, Vinicius Maldaner, Vítor Oliveira Carvalho, Wladimir Musetti Medeiros, Fernanda Cordoba Lanza, Gerson Cipriano

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Physical Therapy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health NetworkConcordia UniversityCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationPsychological interventionMedicineHeart failurePhysical therapyClinical PracticePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of Physical TherapySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207