Relevance of the Get Active Questionnaire for Pre-Participation Exercise Screening in the General Population in a Tropical Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Get Active Questionnaire (GAQ), developed by the Canadian Society for Exercise Professionals (CSEP), was recently recommended for pre-participation screening of the general population in Singapore before increasing their exercise levels. This literature review examines the evidence behind the GAQ and its relevance to our tropical environment. Searches were carried out via Pubmed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Resources referenced by the CSEPs were hand searched. The CSEP was also contacted for further information. The evidence behind each GAQ question was compared to international literature and guidelines, where applicable. Out of 273 studies, 49 were suitable for analysis. Two GAQ studies commissioned by the CSEP showed a high negative predictive value but high false negative rate. Of the nine GAQ questions, those on dizziness, joint pains and chronic diseases appear to be justified. Those on heart disease/stroke, hypertension, breathlessness and concussion require modification. The one on syncope can be amalgamated into the dizziness question. The remaining question may be deleted. No long-term studies were available to validate the use of the GAQ. Heat disorders were not considered in the GAQ. Modification of the GAQ, including the inclusion of environmental factors, may make it more suitable for the general population and should be considered.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".