Effect of two different types of exercise volumes on exercise capacity, physical activity, and quality of life in subjects undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Phase II of cardiac rehabilitation includes 36 sessions of exercise over 12 weeks, an intervention format that seems to be based on historical practice and not scientific evidence. The objective was to evaluate the effect of two types of exercise vol-umes on exercise capacity, physical activity levels, and quality of life in subjects undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods. A randomized controlled clinical trial was performed in 17 subjects, who were randomly assigned into two groups. The first (n = 7) was trained for eight consecutive weeks, and the second (n = 10) for 12 weeks. The six-minute walk test, the In-ternational Physical Activity Questionnaire, and the SF-36 were applied before starting the cardiac rehabilitation program at 8 and 12 weeks.Results. No significant differences were found between the intervention groups. The rise in VO2 max was only significant in the 8-week group. Both groups improved their distance walked and sedentary behaviour. The 12-week intervention group had improved the quality of life, specifically in physical functioning, and the 8-week intervention group in the domains of social, physical, and emotional functioning. Additionally, the percentage of participants meeting physical activity recommendations was higher in the 12-week cardiac rehabilitation group.Conclusions. The implication for clinical practice is that the exercise traditionally used in cardiac rehabilitation shows early changes in exercise capacity and quality of life. The results of the levels of physical activity and sedentary behaviour improved after 12 weeks of rehabilitation without the presence of adverse events.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".