MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123416785 · doi:10.1139/h11-048

Evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for exercise testing and physical activity clearance in apparently healthy individuals<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.

2011· review· en· W2123416785 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectCINAHLPopulationIncidence (geometry)MEDLINEMeta-analysisSystematic reviewInternal medicinePhysical therapyPsychological interventionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased physical activity (PA) is associated with improved health and quality of life in the general population. A dose-response effect is evident between increasing levels of PA participation and a lower relative risk for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. However, there is also clear evidence that PA acutely increases the risk of an adverse cardiovascular (CV) event and sudden cardiac death (SCD) significantly above levels expected at rest. Adverse CV events during PA may be triggered acutely by the physiological stress of exercise. This investigation will review the available literature describing the CV risks of exercise testing and PA participation in apparently healthy individuals. A systematic review of the literature was performed using electronic databases, including Medline, CINAHL, SPORT discus, EMBASE, Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, and DARE; additional relevant articles were hand-picked and the final grouping was used for the review using the AGREE process to assess the impact and quality of the selected articles. Six hundred and sixteen relevant articles were reviewed with 51 being identified as describing adverse CV events during exercise and PA. Data suggests the risks of fatal and nonfatal events during maximal exercise testing in apparently healthy individuals rarely occur (approximately <0.8 per 10 000 tests or 1 per 10 000 h of testing). The incidence of adverse CV events is extremely low during PA of varying types and intensities, with data limited almost exclusively to fatal CV events, as nonfatal events are rarely reported. However, this risk is reduced by 25%-50% in those individuals who have prior experience with increased levels of PA, particularly vigorous PA. Throughout a wide age range, the risk of SCD and nonfatal events during PA remain extremely low (well below 0.01 per 10 000 participant hours), but both increasing age and PA intensity are associated with greater risk. In most cases of exercise-related SCD, undetected pre-existing disease is present and SCD is typically the first clinical event. The risks of an adverse CV event during exercise testing and PA are rare and are outweighed by the health benefits. Given this risk-benefit relationship, the PAR-Q is an appropriate method to identify those at higher risk across a wide age span and should be used in conjunction with appropriate clinical guidelines for guiding individuals towards graduated PA. There are not adequate data to describe the risks of PA in those individuals considered to be at higher risk but without cardiovascular disease.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.283 · 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