A scoping review of recommendations for adults with cardiovascular disease to remain physically active during hot weather
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Climate change is intensifying the occurrence and intensity of hot weather that is associated with cardiovascular health risks and disengagement from physical activity. To help promote safe and continued engagement with physical activity despite a warming climate, we aimed to map existing recommendations for physical activity in hot weather that are specific to adults living with cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a scoping review of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus, supplemented by cross-referencing and grey literature. Sources were included if they reported temperature thresholds or behavioural recommendations for physical activity in hot weather for adults (≥18 years). Data on source characteristics, target populations, temperature thresholds, and specific guidelines or suggested behaviours were extracted. Of 32 included sources, 24 reported at least one temperature above which physical activity should be limited. The most frequently covered themes were preventive recommendations (100%; 20 different recommendations), symptoms (81%; most cited being heat stroke and exhaustion), heat-related risk factors (56%), and treatments (53%). No source mentioned adverse cardiac events as possible health risks. Of the 20 sources highlighting populations at greater risk when exercising in the heat, 12 mentioned individuals with cardiovascular disease. However, no specific recommendations for this population were retrieved. CONCLUSION: Few sources acknowledge that adults living with cardiovascular disease are at greater health risks during physical activity in hot weather, and specific recommendations for this population are absent. These gaps highlight a need to develop recommendations tailored to adults living with cardiovascular disease.
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 | 0.026 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".