Social Cognitive Changes Following Weight Loss and Physical Activity Interventions in Obese, Older Adults in Poor Cardiovascular Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study objectives were to determine (a) the effects of group-mediated cognitive-behavioral interventions on change in performance self-efficacy, satisfaction with function, and with appearance among older, overweight/obese adults in poor cardiovascular health and (b) whether self-efficacy mediated change in 400-m walk time. METHODS: This translational, randomized controlled trial of physical activity and weight loss was conducted within community Cooperative Extension Centers. Participants were randomized to three intervention arms: Physical Activity, Weight Loss + Physical Activity, or a Successful Aging education control. RESULTS: Across 18 months, the Weight Loss + Physical Activity intervention demonstrated greater improvements in self-efficacy, satisfaction with function, and appearance versus other trial arms. Physical Activity intervention participants also experienced significant improvements in self-efficacy and satisfaction with function versus those in Successful Aging. Self-efficacy mediated 400-m walk time at 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Both group-mediated cognitive-behavioral interventions yielded desirable improvements in social cognitions and preserved mobility improvements post-intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".