MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765808298 · doi:10.1139/h11-063

Evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for physical activity clearance: diabetes mellitus and related comorbidities<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· W2765808298 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael C. Riddell, Jamie F. Burr

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrediabetesMedicineDiabetes mellitusRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectMEDLINEPhysical therapyHypoglycemiaType 2 diabetesIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical activity (PA) is one of the most powerful treatment options for persons with prediabetes or diabetes. However, some elevation in risk occurs with increased PA, at least initially, and certain precautions need to be made to lower these risks, particularly if these persons are unaccustomed to exercise. We conducted a standardized search of all adverse events associated with increased PA in persons with prediabetes or diabetes (type 1 or type 2) and provided evidence-based guidelines on PA screening in these apparently high-risk individuals. A systematic literature review was performed of all studies reporting on adverse events in persons with prediabetes or diabetes. Studies included were from all designs (retrospective and prospective including randomized controlled trials) and were assessed according to evaluation criteria adapted by a consensus panel. A total of 47 studies, involving >8000 individuals, were deemed eligible. A number of these studies identified a range of mild to severe acute risks with exercise (musculoskeletal injury, hypoglycemia, foot ulceration, proliferative retinopathy, hypotension, sudden death) but the overall prevalence was low. Based on several randomized controlled trials and prospective studies in which prescribed exercise was performed at a wide range of intensities, it appears that increased PA is a relatively safe procedure with no evidence of a loss of life. Based on our assessment of the available literature, we provide a new PA risk algorithm for persons with prediabetes and diabetes and comment on the role of the patient, the qualified exercise professional, and the patient's physician in the risk screening process.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.312
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.312
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0150.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0090.005
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.010

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations54
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207