MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7078241442 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2025.08.008

Peer Support for Women with Heart Disease: Program Description and Evaluation of Women@Heart

2025· article· en· W7078241442 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalCanadian Heart Research CentreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa Heart Institute Foundation
KeywordsPsychosocialCoping (psychology)RehabilitationPeer supportPsychosocial supportSocial support

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women with heart disease face higher risks of death, cardiac events, depression, and reduced quality of life, compared to men. However, women's participation level in cardiac rehabilitation programs remains low. Peer support programs, such as Women@Heart (W@H), led by women with lived experiences, can enhance program uptake and improve psychosocial well-being. Our pilot evaluation of W@H showed improvements in psychosocial and health behaviour measures, including coping skills and health empowerment. This program evaluation demonstrates the feasibility and effectiveness of W@H in addressing the unique needs of women with heart disease; however, further and large-scale evaluation is needed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207