MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Physical Fitness of Adults with an Intellectual Disability: A 13-Year Follow-up Study

2000· article· en· W2053391236 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Graham, Greg Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical fitnessIntellectual disabilityCardiovascular fitnessBody mass indexTest (biology)GerontologyPsychologyPhysical strengthPhysical therapyFlexibility (engineering)MedicineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to describe the change in physical fitness of middle-aged adults with an intellectual disability over a period of 13 years. Participants were 32 adults who worked in a supported work environment in Montreal and had been participants in a physical fitness study in 1983. Using the Canadian Standardized Test of Fitness, the participants were evaluated for cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, muscular endurance, flexibility, and body composition. A home visit prior to the testing session refamiliarized the participants with the test procedures. Two forms of analysis were used to describe the change in fitness over 13 years. First, a 2 x 2 (Group x Time) analysis of variance for each dependent variable assessed change over time. Second, effect sizes were calculated to measure the magnitude of change in fitness over the 13-year period in comparison to those without an intellectual disability. As expected, the physical fitness levels of the participants were low when compared to those without a disability and declined over the 13 years. In addition, the magnitude of change over the 13 years, as compared to those without a disability, was greater for male and female participants for body mass index and percentage of body fat and for female participants for cardiovascular endurance and sit-ups. It appears that adults with an intellectual disability may be particularly at risk for declining health associated with aging and low physical fitness.

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)0.002
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations171
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Quarterly for Exercise and SportSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207