Physical Activity Levels Are Low in Free‐Living Adults with Chronic Paraplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare physical activity levels (PALs) of free-living adults with chronic paraplegia with World Health Organization recommendations and to compare energy expenditure between persons with complete vs. incomplete paraplegia. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Twenty-seven euthyroid adults (17 men and 10 women) with paraplegia (12.5 +/- 9.5 years since onset; 17 with complete lesions and 10 with incomplete lesions) participated in this cross-sectional study. Resting metabolic rate was measured by indirect calorimetry and total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) by heart rate monitoring. PAL was calculated as TDEE/resting metabolic rate. Total body water was measured by deuterium dilution and fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) by calculation (FFM = total body water/0.732; FM = weight - FFM). Obesity was defined using the following percentage FM cutoffs: men 18 to 40 years >22% and 41 to 60 years >25%; and women 18 to 40 years >35% and 41 to 60 years >38%. RESULTS: Nineteen subjects (70.4%; 13 men and six women) were obese. Fifteen subjects (56%) engaged in structured physical activity 1.46 +/- 0.85 times during the observation period for a mean of 49.4 +/- 31.0 minutes per session. Despite this, mean PAL of the group was 1.56 +/- 0.34, indicative of limited physical activity. TDEE was 24.6% lower in subjects with complete paraplegia (2072 +/- 505 vs. 2582 +/- 852 kcal/d, p = 0.0372). DISCUSSION: PAL of the group was low, indicating that persons with paraplegia need to engage in increased frequency, intensity, and/or duration of structured physical activity to achieve a PAL >/=1.75 and, thereby, to offset sedentary activities of daily living.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".