Seasonal Differences in Objective Measures of Sedentary Time in Older Community-Dwelling Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time in sedentary behaviours is being recognised as an independent contributor to adverse health outcomes. Seasonal variation in physical activity patterns has been previously described; such variation has not been evaluated for the amount of time spent in sedentary behaviours. PURPOSE: Our primary objective was to determine the difference in sedentary time assessed by accelerometry in community-dwelling post-menopausal women aged 65-75 years of age. Specifically we examined total sedentary time and breaks in sedentary time between summer and winter in older women. METHODS: This was an a priori secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to test the effect of frequency of resistance training (primary outcome was cognitive function). Participants were asked to wear accelerometers (ActiGraph GT1M, Pensacola, FL) during waking hours (except during study exercise classes and water-based activities) for 1 week (data collected in 1 min epoch with at least 4 days with 10+ hrs/day) at 2 time points: summer (July) and winter (January). We classified sedentary time as counts less than 100 counts/min using MeterPlus software (Santech, La Jolla, CA). Breaks in sedentary time were defined as interruptions in sedentary time with counts above 100counts/min. We determined the total sedentary time, number of breaks in sedentary time and length of breaks in sedentary time. We adjusted for wear time variability between measurement periods by standardizing values based on residuals. We compared sedentary outcomes between summer and winter using a paired-T test. RESULTS: 107 participants had valid accelerometry data to meet the inclusion criteria. We pooled the data as there was no difference among the intervention groups for the sedentary outcomes. The mean age was 69.6±2.9 years, mean BMI was 26.6±5.6 kg/m2 and mean 6 minute walk test was 516±81 meters. For a mean wear time 5.8 days: the mean total sedentary time was 47.6 ±6.9 hrs in the summer and 50.8 ±5.8 hrs in the winter (p<0.001); the total number of breaks in sedentary time were 461±66 in summer and 440 ±71 in the winter (p=0.01); and the total length of breaks in sedentary time was 26.6±6.9 hrs in summer and 23.4±5.8 hrs in the winter (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this physically active group of community-dwelling older women we note a seasonal difference in sedentary time.
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".