Evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for physical activity clearance: established cardiovascular disease<sup>1</sup>This paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled Evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for physical activity clearance, and has undergone the Journal’s usual peer review process.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity is an effective lifestyle therapy for patients at risk for, or with, documented cardiovascular disease (CVD). Current screening tools--the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) and the Physical Activity Readiness Medical Evaluation (PARmed-X)--require updating to align with risk/benefit evidence. We provide evidence-based recommendations to identify individuals with CVD at lower risk, intermediate risk, or higher risk of adverse events when participating in physical activity. Forms of exercise and the settings that will appropriately manage the risks are identified. A computer-assisted search of electronic databases, using search terms for CVD and physical activity risks and benefits, was employed. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation were applied to assess the evidence and assign a strength of evidence rating. A strength rating for the physical activity participation clearance recommendation was assigned on the basis of the evidence. Recommendations for physical activity clearance were made for specific CVD groups. Evidence indicates that those who are medically stable, who are involved with physical activity, and who have adequate physical ability can participate in physical activity of lower to moderate risk. Patients at higher risk can exercise in medically supervised programs. Systematic evaluation of evidence indicates that clinically stable individuals with CVD may participate in physical activity with little risk of adverse events. Therefore, changes in the PAR-Q should be undertaken and a process of assessment and consultation to replace the PARmed-X should be developed. Patients at lower risk may exercise at low to moderate intensities with minimal supervision. Those at intermediate risk should exercise with guidance from a qualified exercise professional. Patients at higher risk should exercise in medically supervised programs.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | medium |
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 | 0.056 | 0.314 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.011 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".