COMPARING CARDIAC REHABILITATION GUIDELINES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Comparing Cardiac Rehabilitation Guidelines. Method: guidelines were searched alone and with combination with different nations in English language. To review information about the exercises modes, exercise intensity, testing, and monitoring of patients. Results: the United States, Canadian, United Kingdome, and European guidelines all have common components and have differences in the exercises modes and intensity. The United States, Canada, and European guideline suggest aerobic training should progressing from moderate to vigorous intensity through the program, these guidelines also suggest resistance training combined with the aerobic training to improve quality of life. The United Kingdome recommends lower intensity program and less ECG monitoring. Although the other guidelines recommend ECG exercises stress test for functional capacity assessment. Conclusion: guideline for the Mediterranean region should be assembled and after reviewing these guidelines, it is recommended to use ECG monitoring for functional assessment. Managing the risk factors is recommended in all the guidelines. Aerobic endurance training is recommended to advance from moderate to high intensity exercises combined with resistance training. These characteristics are safe for the patients and also showed improvements in patient’s health and quality of life.
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 | 0.031 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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.
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".