MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100815293 · doi:10.1139/h11-037

Evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for physical activity: arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain<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· W2100815293 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Philip D. Chilibeck, Hassanali Vatanparast, Stephen M. Cornish, Saman Abeysekara, Sarah Charlesworth

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyOsteoporosisAdverse effectLow back painBack painTrunkArthritisRandomized controlled trialJoint painIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We systematically reviewed the safety of physical activity (PA) for people with arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Sport Discus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1966 through March 2008) for relevant articles on PA and adverse events. A total of 111 articles met our inclusion criteria. The incidence for adverse events during PA was 3.4%-11% (0.06%-2.4% serious adverse events) and included increased joint pain, fracture, and back pain for those with arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain, respectively. Recommendations were based on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, which applies Levels of Evidence based on type of study ranging from high-quality randomized controlled trials (Level 1) to anecdotal evidence (Level 4) and Grades from A (strong) to C (weak). Our main recommendations are that (i) arthritic patients with highly progressed forms of disease should avoid heavy load-bearing activities, but should participate in non-weight-bearing activities (Level 2, Grade A); and (ii) patients with osteoporosis should avoid trunk flexion (Level 2, Grade A) and powerful twisting of the trunk (Level 3, Grade C); (iii) patients with acute low back pain can safely do preference-based PA (i.e., PA that does not induce pain), including low back extension and flexion (Level 2, Grade B); (iv) arthritic patients with stable disease without progressive joint damage and patients with stable osteoporosis or low back pain can safely perform a variety of progressive aerobic or resistance-training PAs (Level 2, Grades A and B). Overall, the adverse event incidence from reviewed studies was low. PA can safely be done by most individuals with musculoskeletal 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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.390
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.390
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.012
Bibliometrics0.0180.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0090.004
Research integrity0.0140.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations45
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207