MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1950366691 · doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0045-7

The use of the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire in oncology research: a systematic review

2015· review· en· W1950366691 on OpenAlexafffund
Steve Amireault, Gaston Godin, Jason Lacombe, Catherine M. Sabiston

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEScale (ratio)Physical activityAlternative medicineFamily medicineClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (GSLTPAQ) is one of the most often used questionnaires in oncology research, yet modifications to the scale are done with little evidence of psychometric testing. This study aimed to (i) document the frequency of use of the questionnaire for ranking (i.e., level of activity) and classification (i.e., active versus insufficiently active) purposes, (ii) summarize how the GSLTPAQ is used in terms of item content and scoring, and (iii) evaluate the extent to which validity evidence supports the use of the scale among cancer survivors. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted with evidence drawn from English-written articles published between January 1(st) 1985 (year the GSLTPAQ was published) and December 31, 2014. A search of six databases, a scan of reference list of included articles, and a cited reference search identified articles that reported using the GSLTPAQ among cancer survivors. RESULTS: A total of 212 articles were retrieved. The GSLTPAQ was used for classifying cancer survivors into active and insufficiently active categories in 51 % of the articles. Moreover, a modified version of the questionnaire was used in 81 % of the research studies. Three studies reported validity evidence based on the relationship between the scores on the GSLTPAQ (i.e., leisure score index, LSI) and accelerometer or pedometer-derived activity data. Validity evidence supporting the use of the GSLTPAQ for assessing changes in LSI was computed from six randomized trials. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the GSLTPAQ for classification purpose in oncology research is common. Standardization in the use and interpretation of the GSLTPAQ in oncology research is warranted. Although limited, there is support for using the original form of the GSLTPAQ and interpreting the LSI for ranking cancer survivors from the lowest to highest levels of leisure-time physical activity.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0170.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.863
GPT teacher head0.665
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations339
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207