The Exeter Activity Unlimited statement on physical activity and exercise for cystic fibrosis: methodology and results of an international, multidisciplinary, evidence-driven expert consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The roles of physical activity (PA) and exercise within the management of cystic fibrosis (CF) are recognised by their inclusion in numerous standards of care and treatment guidelines. However, information is brief, and both PA and exercise as multi-faceted behaviours require extensive stakeholder input when developing and promoting such guidelines. METHOD: July 2021, 39 stakeholders from 11 countries, including researchers, healthcare professionals and patients participated in a virtual conference to agree an evidence-based and informed expert consensus about PA and exercise for people with CF. This consensus presents the agreement across six themes: (i) patient and system centred outcomes, (ii) health benefits, iii) measurement, (iv) prescription, (v) clinical considerations, and (vi) future directions. The consensus was achieved by a stepwise process, involving: (i) written evidence-based synopses; (ii) peer critique of synopses; (iii) oral presentation to consensus group and peer challenge of revised synopses; and (iv) anonymous voting on final proposed synopses for adoption to the consensus statement. RESULTS: The final consensus document includes 24 statements which surpassed the consensus threshold (>80% agreement) out of 30 proposed statements. CONCLUSION: This consensus can be used to support health promotion by relevant stakeholders for people with CF.
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 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 | 0.377 | 0.323 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".