CALL FOR ACTION: GUIDELINES FOR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY BASED INTERVENTIONS IN ADDICTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the evidence supporting the extensive benefits of exercise for people experiencing substance use disorders (SUD) rapidly growing, the demand for clinical exercise interventions in SUD services is expanding through Australia. However, at present there are no clear safety considerations or guidelines specific to SUD, leaving exercise physiologists falling to broader guidelines when working with SUD, often using those developed for severe mental illness (SMI). When working with SUD, many considerations differ to those being treated with SMI. This includes differences in the common comorbidities seen in SUD compared to SMI, as well as considerations relating to withdrawal and craving management. Furthermore, the different impacts and considerations of each substance class in relation to exercise needs to be elucidated. Therefore, standardised safety considerations and contraindications need to be developed to allow Exercise Physiologists to provide safe and effective interventions for those in the withdrawal and recovery phase of SUD. This call for action proposes the development of a multidisciplinary informed clinical exercise guideline for safety protocols, considerations and contraindications for physical activity-based interventions within substance use disorder treatment.
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 | 0.061 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.049 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.017 |
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".