MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037589901 · doi:10.1017/s0959259814000124

Frailty in relation to sedentary behaviours and moderate-vigorous intensity physical activity

2014· article· en· W2037589901 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna M. Blodgett, Olga Theou, Susan Kirkland, Pantelis Andreou, Kenneth Rockwood

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Clinical Gerontology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCapital District Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife expectancyPhysical activityGerontologyAssociation (psychology)MedicineSedentary lifestylePopulationPsychologyDemographyEnvironmental healthPhysical therapySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary As the mean life expectancy of the population continues to increase, the challenge for individuals is to remain healthy and fit throughout their life span. This review examines the relationships between moderate-vigorous physical activity and sedentary behaviour in relation to the fitness-frailty continuum. The association between increased physical activity and decreased adverse health outcomes is firmly established. A direct association between frailty and moderate-vigorous physical activity has been established to a lesser degree. What has some potential to undermine even these gains is the increasingly recognized relationship between sedentary behaviour and poor health. It now seems likely that sedentary behaviour can have a negative impact on an individual's health, over and above that of meeting the recommendations of moderate-vigorous physical activity. Individuals must consider both increasing their level of moderate-vigorous physical activity and minimizing their level of sedentary behaviour during all aspects of daily life.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Clinical GerontologySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207