MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046787249 · doi:10.4236/health.2012.429119

Exercises and sports participation in healthy older adults with intellectual disability—A pilot study

2012· article· en· W2046787249 on OpenAlexaff
Eli Carmeli, Joav Merrick, Bita Imam, Ran Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingGerontologyMedicineIntellectual disabilityHealthy agingPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Many adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) have low physical activity (PA). Lack of PA is a risk factor for metabolic and cardiovascular diseases, and some types of cancer. The objective of this study was to investigate the rate of PA in healthy older adults with ID. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of baseline data. Participants were caregivers of persons with ID who were over 50 years old and living in a residential care center. A PA questionnaire and a daily rapport form were used to gather information about the type and rate of daily PA of persons with ID for 12 consecutive days. The Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) was used to assess functional dependency. Results: Healthy older adults with ID do not engage in adequate regular PA as recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services. Conclusion: The low participation in PA for persons with ID may be related to lack of appreciation of the benefits of PA, lack of support from their caregivers and difficulty finding experienced personnel to train them.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207