MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043061885 · doi:10.3810/psm.2009.04.1691

Independence: A New Reason for Recommending Regular Exercise to Your Patients

2009· review· en· W2043061885 on OpenAlexaff
Roy J. Shephard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physician and Sportsmedicine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVO2 maxFlexibility (engineering)Balance (ability)Independence (probability theory)MedicinePhysical therapyMuscle powerAerobic capacityQuality of life (healthcare)Physical strengthAerobic exercisePhysical medicine and rehabilitationGerontologyMathematicsInternal medicineStatisticsHeart rateNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many good reasons to advise regular and adequate physical activity: longevity seems extended by up to 2 years, and the risk of a wide range of chronic disorders is substantially reduced. However, from the viewpoint of the overall, quality-adjusted lifespan, perhaps the most important reason is the ability of physical activity to counter the relentless, age-related decrease in physical capacity (maximal aerobic power, muscle strength, flexibility, and balance). The case is detailed for maximal aerobic power, which deteriorates by about 5 mL/ [kg x min] for each decade of adult life. Independence is generally at risk when the maximal oxygen intake has dropped to 18 mL/ [kg x min] in men and 15 mL/ [kg x min] in women. A sedentary person typically reaches this threshold between 80 and 85 years old. However, regular physical activity can augment maximal oxygen transport by 5 to 10 mL/ [kg x min], setting back the need for institutional support by 10 to 20 years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Physician and SportsmedicineSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207