Physical work capacity in older adults: Implications for the aging worker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In many developed countries, the workforce is rapidly aging. Occupational demands however, have not decreased despite the fact that workers see a decline in physical work capacity with age. The purpose of this review is to examine the physiological adaptations to aging, the impact of aging on performance and the benefits of physical fitness in improving functional work capacity in aging individuals. METHODS: An extensive search of the scientific literature was performed, acquiring published articles which examined the physiological changes associated with age-related decrements in the physical work capacity of healthy aging adults. The databases accessed included AARP Ageline, AccessScience, Annual Reviews, CISTI, Cochrane Library, Clinical Evidence, Digital Dissertations (Proquest), Embase, HealthSTAR, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and PASCAL and included relevant information sites obtained on the world wide web. RESULTS: While a great deal of variation exists, an average decline of 20% in physical work capacity has been reported between the ages of 40 and 60 years, due to decreases in aerobic and musculoskeletal capacity. These declines can contribute to decreased work capacity, and consequential increases in work-related injuries and illness. However, differences in habitual physical activity will greatly influence the variability seen in individual physical work capacity and its components. Well-organized, management-supported, work-site health interventions encouraging physical activity during work hours could potentially decrease the incidence of age-related injury and illness. CONCLUSIONS: Age-associated functional declines and the accompanying risk of work-related injury can be prevented or at least delayed by the practice of regular physical activity. Older workers could optimally pursue their careers until retirement if they continuously maintain their physical training.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".