A PubMed search filter for efficiently retrieving exercise training studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A barrier to evidence-informed exercise programming is locating studies of exercise training programs. The purpose of this study was to create a search filter for studies of exercise training programs for the PubMed electronic bibliographic database. METHODS: Candidate search terms were identified from three sources: exercise-relevant MeSH terms and their corresponding Entry terms, word frequency analysis of articles in a gold-standard reference set curated from systematic reviews focused on exercise training, and retrospective searching of articles retrieved in the search filter development and testing steps. These terms were assembled into an exercise training search filter, and its performance was assessed against a basic search string applied to six case studies. Search string performance was measured as sensitivity (relative recall), precision, and number needed to read (NNR). We aimed to achieve relative recall ≥ 85%, and a NNR ≥ 2. RESULTS: The reference set consisted of 71 articles drawn from six systematic reviews. Sixty-one candidate search terms were evaluated for inclusion, 21 of which were included in the finalized exercise-training search filter. The relative recall of the search filter was 96% for the reference set and the precision mean ± SD was 54 ± 16% across the case studies, with the corresponding NNR = ~ 2. The exercise training search filter consistently outperformed the basic search string. CONCLUSION: The exercise training search filter fosters more efficient searches for studies of exercise training programs in the PubMed electronic bibliographic database. This search string may therefore support evidence-informed practice in exercise programming.
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 | 0.153 | 0.391 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.060 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".