Daily Pedometer Steps among Older Men: Associations with Health-Related Quality of Life and Psychosocial Health
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
PURPOSE: To determine the associations of daily pedometer steps with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychosocial health. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Alberta, Canada. SUBJECTS: Three hundred eighty-five older-aged men 55 years of age and older. MEASURES: Subjects completed a mailed survey that assessed HRQoL (RAND-12 Health Status Inventory [RAND-12]), depression, anxiety, and satisfaction with life. Steps/day were assessed with a pedometer via a 3-day step-monitoring period. ANALYSIS: Average pedometer steps/d were categorized into quartiles (Qs). The primary model assessed the association between average pedometer steps/d as the independent variable of interest and our dependent variables of interest (physical, mental, and global health component scores of the RAND-12). RESULTS: For HRQoL, all three adjusted models (i.e., physical, mental, and global health) indicated a significant linear trend between HRQoL indices across pedometer step Qs, with participants in Q3 and Q4 demonstrating higher physical, mental, and global health compared to participants in the lowest Q of pedometer steps (Q1) (all p < .05). For depression, significant differences were observed between Q1 and Q3 (Mdiff = 3.3, p = .006, η(2) = .019) and Q1 and Q4 (Mdiff = 2.7, p = .025, η(2) = .013). CONCLUSION: Higher average steps/d were significantly associated with HRQoL across all domains. Older men in the higher Qs of pedometer steps/d reported less depressive symptoms compared to those in the lowest Q of pedometer steps/d.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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