Sex disparities in health outcomes following cardiac rehabilitation for coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Referral to, participation in, and execution of cardiac rehabilitation programs are comparatively lower in females than in males. The current study aimed to explore potential sex disparities in cardiorespiratory capacity and clinical outcomes after cardiac rehabilitation for coronary artery disease. Systematic searches were conducted across the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to identify studies assessing primary outcomes of cardiorespiratory capacity (peak oxygen uptake, peak metabolic equivalents, and its changes), secondary outcomes of cardiovascular endpoints (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, rehospitalization) and quality of life following cardiac rehabilitation in both female and male patients with coronary artery disease. A total of 22 predominantly observational studies involving 27 624 patients were analyzed, with 7441 (26.9%) being female and 20 183 (73.1%) being male. After cardiac rehabilitation, females showed lower peak oxygen uptake (mean difference −4.82, 95% confidence intervals −6.30 to −3.34 mL/kg/min, P < 0.00001), peak metabolic equivalents (−1.74, −2.34 to −1.14 units, P < 0.001) and its absolute changes from baseline (−0.40, −0.44 to −0.36 units, P < 0.001), as well as the worse quality of life when compared to males. However, there were no significant sex variations in all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization. In conclusion, females exhibited lower cardiorespiratory capacity and quality of life than males following cardiac rehabilitation. Despite these disparities, no sex-based differences existed in cardiovascular outcomes during the follow-up period after cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease. (Registration No. CRD42021269222)
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".