Gender Differences in Range of Motion in Older Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThis study had three purposes: to compare active neck and upper extremity range of motion (ROM) in women and men in context of expected values, to examine ROM decrease with age in women and men, and to predict age-related ROM in older women and men. Sixty-one women and 25 men who lived independently in the community were measured. ROM was less for older women and older men when compared to expected values. ROM declined with age for both women and men; however, women maintained greater range. The estimated regression coefficients can be used to predict ROM in older women and men. Clinical implications in evaluation are discussed.KEYWORDS: Gerontologyagingolder womenolder menphysiological aspects of aging Additional informationNotes on contributorsPatricia S. CostelloJennifer R. Johnson was a graduate student in the School of Occupational Therapy, Texas Woman's University, Houston, TX at the time of this study. She is currently employed as an Occupational Therapist at Touro Infirmary in New Orleans, LADebra Stewart is Lecturer, School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University and staff therapist at Erinoak Centre, Missis-sauga, Ontario. She is currently completing a MSc (Design, Measurement and Evaluation) at McMaster University.Ronald L. Mace (deceased, June 29, 1998) was also affiliated with The Center for Universal Design, School of Design, North Carolina University.Lois Rosage and Geraldine Shaw are Occupational Therapist Consultants who provide evaluations for the housing programs at the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging.Lois Rosage and Geraldine Shaw are Occupational Therapist Consultants who provide evaluations for the housing programs at the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging.Debbie Rand is Occupational Therapist, Beit Rivka Geriatric Rehabilitation Hospital, Petach Tikva, Israel. She completed this study in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree in Occupational Therapy, School of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her mailing address is 50 Heh B'Eyar Street, Apartment 5, Rosh Ha'Ayin, Israel, 48056.Maureen McKenna is a Licensed Physical Therapist and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in California. Her Current position is: Assistant Professor of Physical Therapy, Wheeling Jesuit University, 316 Washington Avenue, Wheeling, WV 26003.Heather Lambert was funded in part by a Health Canada NHRDP Fellowship, a REPAR Fellowship, a doctoral bursary from the Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Quebec, and a Canadian Occupational Therapy Foundation-Royal Canadian Legion Fellowship in Gerontology.Trish Wielandt was supported by a University of Queensland Postgraduate Research Scholarship (UQPRS).Dr. Leigh Tooth was supported by a NHMRC Fellowship (#997032) while some of this research was undertaken.J. D. "Herb" Herbert is Occupational Therapist, Rocky Mountain Menders LLC, 363 Pioneer Road, Lyons, CO 80540. At the time of this study, he was a graduate student, Department of Occupational Therapy, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it