MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1933908275 · doi:10.1139/h11-044

Enhancing the effectiveness of clearance for physical activity participation: background and overall process<sup>1</sup>This paper is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue entitled Evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for physical activity clearance, and has undergone the Journal's usual peer-review process.

2011· review· en· W1933908275 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Veronica Jamnik, Darren E. R. Warburton, Julie Makarski, Donald C. McKenzie, Roy J. Shephard, James A. Stone, Sarah Charlesworth, Norman Gledhill

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaYork UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProcess (computing)PsychologyMedical educationPhysical therapyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent feedback from physical activity (PA) participants, fitness professionals, and physicians has indicated that there are limitations to the utility and effectiveness of the existing PAR-Q and PARmed-X screening tools for PA participation. The aim of this study was to have authorities in exercise and chronic disease management to work with an expert panel to increase the effectiveness of clearance for PA participation using an evidence-based consensus approach and the well-established Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. Systematic reviews were conducted to develop a new PA clearance protocol involving risk stratification and a decision-tree process. Evidence-based support was sought for enabling qualified exercise professionals to have a direct role in the PA participation clearance process. The PAR-Q+ was developed to use formalized probes to clarify problematic responses and to explore issues arising from currently diagnosed chronic disease or condition. The original PARmed-X tool is replaced with an interactive computer program (ePARmed-X+) to clear prospective PA participants for either unrestricted or supervised PA or to direct them to obtain medical clearance. Evidence-based validation was also provided for the direct role of highly qualified university-educated exercise professionals in the PA clearance process. The risks associated with exercise during pregnancy were also evaluated. The systematic review and consensus process, conforming to the AGREE Instrument, has provided a sound evidence base for enhanced effectiveness of the clearance process for PA participation of both asymptomatic populations and persons with chronic diseases or conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.368
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.592
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3680.592
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations72
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207