Assessing Cardiovascular Fitness on Military Recruitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Military recruitment demands optimal health, with cardiovascular fitness being a key criterion. To assess candidates, military organizations worldwide employ standardized screening protocols. Initial evaluations typically involve history-taking and physical examinations based on guidelines from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. Method: Electrocardiography (ECG) serves as an accessible and cost-effective screening tool. Abnormal findings in these initial tests necessitate further assessments to determine a candidate’s fitness for service. Depending on the severity and context, additional tests such as echocardiography or, in rare cases, coronary angiography may be conducted. However, cost constraints influence the extent of these evaluations in some countries. Aim: This article examines cardiovascular screening in military recruitment and the variations in assessment practices across different nations. -- Highlights: 1. This article addresses the importance of standardized yet flexible cardiovascular assessments essential for military screenings. While standardized protocols are essential for consistency, military screenings should also adapt to environmental factors, individual differences, and evolving fitness benchmarks to ensure accurate evaluations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".