Sex Differences, Age, Arthritis, and Chronic Disease: Influence on Physical Activity Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine physical activity (PA) prevalence in individuals with arthritis in comparison with those with other chronic diseases. METHODS: Descriptive analyses were based on cross-sectional self-reported data for adults over age 18 from the Canadian Community Health Survey administered in 2005 (N = 132,221) for the following groups: arthritis, back problems, other physical chronic conditions (ie, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and cancer), and no physical chronic conditions. RESULTS: The arthritis group did less leisure-time physical activity than the other 3 groups, they were particularly less likely to engage in vigorous physical activities, but were just as likely to walk when commuting for errands, work, or school. Older women in the arthritis group appeared to be the least active across physical activities and groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with chronic disease were more physically inactive during leisure than those without chronic physical conditions, and older women in the arthritis group were particularly limited in our study. A more comprehensive assessment of all types of physical activity, including work, leisure, and commuting behaviors, need to be done in populations with chronic disease, to provide a more accurate portrayal of physical activity participation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".