Physical effect of work on healthy individuals: Implications for FCE testing\m{1}
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the effect of time of day and job type on performance of three functional capacity evaluation measures in healthy (asymptomatic) adults. It was queried whether or not a healthy population of adults would demonstrate a change in physical performance ability, when re-tested at the end of their work day. SETTING: A convenience sample of 50 healthy adults (19-62 years, 66% male) was used from six work sites in an urban area. DESIGN: Same day pre-test and post-test testing was performed, implementing use of three commonly used functional capacity tests: Jamar dynamometer grip strength test, Turning sub-test of the Complete Minnesota Dexterity Test, and the 50-foot walk test. METHODS: The study compared morning and afternoon test scores, and using t-tests, assessed the effect of job type (sedentary, light, medium, heavy) on performance using ANOVA. RESULTS: All three measures improved from morning to afternoon; differences were statistically significant for 50-foot walk (mean=0.2 sec, p=0.02) and manual dexterity (mean=5 sec, p< 0.001). Job type had a significant effect on dexterity. CONCLUSIONS: Late day performance did not show any significant decline in this sample of healthy adults, and in fact tended to improve or stay relatively stable. Therefore, clinicians who perform functional capacity evaluations should consider alternative explanations for late-day functional declines observed in injured patients. These findings, combined with other test results, may assist clinicians with disability determination.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".