Objective Assessment of Activity, Energy Expenditure, and Functional Limitations in Older Men: The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between objectively assessed activity, energy expenditure, and the development of functional limitations is unknown. METHODS: Energy expenditure and activity levels were measured objectively using the multisensor SenseWear Pro Armband worn for greater than or equal to 5 days in 1,983 MrOS men (aged ≥ 78.3 years) free of functional limitations. Validated algorithms calculated energy expenditure; standard cut points defined moderate or greater activity (≥ 3.0 METS); and sedentary behavior (time awake ≤ 1.5 METS). Self-reported functional limitation was determined at the activity assessment and 2.0 years later as inability to perform instrumental activities of daily living (managing money, managing medications, shopping, housework, and meal preparation) and activities of daily living (climb stairs, walk two to three blocks, transfer, or bathe). RESULTS: Each standard deviation decrease in total energy expenditure (420.6 kcal/day) increased the likelihood of inability to perform an instrumental activity of daily living (multivariate odds ratio [mOR]: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.30-2.00) or activity of daily living (mOR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.12-1.63). Each standard deviation decrease in moderate or greater activity (61.1 minutes/day) increased the likelihood of inability to perform an instrumental activity of daily living (mOR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.22-1.78) or activity of daily living (mOR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.14-1.61). Each standard deviation increase in minutes of sedentary behavior (105.2 minutes/day) increased the likelihood of inability to perform an instrumental activity of daily living (mOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.40) or activity of daily living (mOR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01-1.35). CONCLUSION: Older men with lower total energy expenditure, lower moderate activity, or greater sedentary time were more likely to develop a functional limitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".