## 3 Results
### Patient Profile Clusters
#### 3.2.2 Clusters of Patient Adherence during Familiarization
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Week**} & **Cluster 1** & **Cluster 2** & **Cluster 3** & \multirow{2}{*}{_p-Value_} \\  & **Adherent-6w** & **Non-Adherent-6w** & **Transient-6w** & \\ \hline
1 & 9.43\(\pm\) 1.6 & 8.94 \(\pm\) 2.4 & 9.4 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 0.87 \\
2 & 10.07 \(\pm\) 5.7 & 9.69 \(\pm\) 7.3 & 8.93 \(\pm\) 13.4 & 0.72 \\
3 & 16 \(\pm\) 7.9 & 11.27 \(\pm\) 8.6 & 20.6 \(\pm\) 19 & 0.35 \\
4 & 18.75 \(\pm\) 11.2 & 13.16 \(\pm\) 9 & 9.78 \(\pm\) 16.3 & 0.99 \\
5 & 22.88 \(\pm\) 9.8 & 10 \(\pm\) 9 & 28.3 \(\pm\) 16.8 & **0.00054** \\
6 & 28.28 \(\pm\) 12.6 & 5.67 \(\pm\) 7.3 & 29.16 \(\pm\) 2.4 & **<0.0001** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean session duration for all of the patients in each group for weeks 1 to 6 of the familiarization phase. The values are presented in minutes as the mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. Finally, from the observation of the correlation matrices in Figure 5c, we can conclude there was a strong negative correlation between the adherence and the mean HR during the session in the Adherent-6w group (as a percentage of the maximum HR), while for Transient-6w patients the correlation was strongly positive, and for the non-adherent-6w group the correlation was tight. Taking Figure 5b into account as well, where Adherent-6w present lower performance compared with Transient-6w patients, this finding suggests that adherence did not necessarily lead to better performance during exercise and that, generally, the patients tended to exercise in beneficial HR zones (Figure 5a). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**\% Time Spent above HRlower**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**\% HRnorm**} \\ \cline{2-9}
**Week** & **Adherent-6w** & **Non-Adherent-6w** & **Transient-6w** & **\(p\)-Value** & **Adherent-6w** & **Non-Adherent-6w** & **Transient-6w** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline
1 & 81.01 \(\pm\) 15.5 & 63.44 \(\pm\) 25.6 & 61.41 \(\pm\) 37.8 & 0.171 & 84.62 \(\pm\) 12.78 & 78.91 \(\pm\) 15.69 & _77.74_ \(\pm\) 18.22 & 0.455 \\
2 & 82.74 \(\pm\) 18.4 & 74.12 \(\pm\) 18 & 83.8 \(\pm\) 20.9 & 0.256 & 83.11 \(\pm\) 11.92 & 83.71 \(\pm\) 15.99 & 91.83 \(\pm\) 11.51 & 0.5 \\
3 & 72.72 \(\pm\) 30.2 & 77.71 \(\pm\) 14.7 & 82.87 \(\pm\) 21.3 & 0.838 & 78.03 \(\pm\) 14.65 & 87.93 \(\pm\) 13.44 & 91.42 \(\pm\) 19.63 & 0.161 \\
4 & 79.38 \(\pm\) 24.1 & 80.31 \(\pm\) 14.7 & 95.37 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 0.181 & 80.76 \(\pm\) 12.32 & 86.67 \(\pm\) 14.49 & 93.18 \(\pm\) 19.94 & 0.508 \\
5 & 76.9 \(\pm\) 27.7 & 70.77 \(\pm\) 24.4 & 73.6 \(\pm\) 25.3 & 0.492 & 81.77 \(\pm\) 14.59 & 79.98 \(\pm\) 14.28 & 83.44 \(\pm\) 13.24 & 0.959 \\
6 & 80.7 \(\pm\) 28 & 77.44 \(\pm\) 10.4 & 82.81 \(\pm\) 15.8 & 0.36 & 82.72 \(\pm\) 16.5 & 86.63 \(\pm\) 14.44 & 88.22 \(\pm\) 13.83 & 0.88 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Performance metrics for the 3 session adherence clusters. Figure 5: On the upper part, \(HRtime\) (**a**) and \(HRnorm\) (**b**) during the familiarization period are depicted for the three clusters. On the bottom (**c**), the [PERSON]’s correlation for those variables with _adher_ is provided; the bigger and darker the circle, the greater the correlation. Blue and red denote positive and negative correlation, respectively.