Physical activity in daily life in physically independent elderly participating in community-based exercise program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether participation in exercise programs specifically developed for elderly translates into a more active lifestyle. OBJECTIVES: To compare the objectively measured level of physical activity in daily life (PADL) between physically independent elderly who participate or do not participate in community-based exercise programs; and to evaluate which factors are associated with the higher level of PADL in these subjects. METHOD: 134 elderly participants in community-based exercise programs (PG) and 104 non-participants (NPG) had their level of PADL measured using pedometers during 7 days. OTHER MEASUREMENTS: 6-minute walking test (6MWT), incremental shuttle walking test (ISWT), muscle strength, flexibility and balance. RESULTS: The PG had higher 1-week mean daily step count than NPG (8314 [IQR 5971-10060] vs. 6250 [IQR 4346-8207] steps/day, p<0.0001), as well as higher step count in any day of the week. There was a higher proportion of physically active subjects (>8000 steps/day) in PG than in NPG (37% vs. 16%, respectively; p<0.001), as well as the proportion of sedentary subjects (<5000 steps/day) (14% vs. 33%, respectively; p<0.001). Participation in exercise programs, 6MWT and ISWT explained a higher daily steps count (model r(2)=0.56, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In physically independent elderly, a higher level of physical activity in daily life occurs in those who participate in community-based exercise programs, regardless of the weekday and including non-program days. Participation of elderly in community-based exercise programs should be more systematically available and encouraged due to its close link to higher activity levels and better exercise capacity.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".