Are military fitness tests safe for members with a total hip arthroplasty?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members must complete an annual fitness evaluation. Members with a total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be at risk of injury during these strenuous tests. To inform CAF policy, we sought expert consensus on the safety of fitness testing for members with a THA. METHODS: We conducted a three-round Delphi study with a panel of hip arthroplasty experts to determine the safety of CAF operational fitness evaluations for members with a THA. The experts evaluated videos of the 10 individual tasks included in the evaluations. RESULTS: All individual tasks were judged to be safe by consensus. One task, which involves digging with a shovel, was considered safe provided that participants avoid deep hip flexion. The nine other tasks were judged to be safe without modifications or interventions. The experts also supported a policy recommendation that would allow members to perform military fitness evaluations if they (1) have a primary THA, (2) had no episodes of instability, (3) are at least 12 months postoperatively and (4) have been cleared by an orthopaedic surgeon and a physiatrist/physiotherapist. CONCLUSION: A panel of arthroplasty experts concluded, based on video analysis, that CAF fitness evaluations are generally safe for members with a THA.
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 | 0.013 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".