MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

201. Self-Reported Sitting Time and Physical Function in Patients Consulting with Peripheral Joint Pain

2015· article· en· W2341256377 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John G. Watkins, Ebenezer Afolabi, Krysia Dziedzic, Emma L. Healey

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSittingPeripheralPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationJoint painJoint (building)Internal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A sedentary lifestyle has been linked to an increased risk of chronic disease and less favourable chronic disease outcome. Exercise is currently recommended as a key treatment in many chronic conditions, including OA, however, limiting the amount of time spent sitting may be just as important and a more achievable recommendation for people with long-term conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between self-reported sitting time and physical function in those consulting for peripheral joint pain within primary care. Methods: Baseline data from the MOSAICS cluster trial (n = 525), which included patients aged 45 years and over consulting for peripheral joint pain in 8 general practices (4 intervention, 4 control practices) in the North West Midlands, were drawn upon for the analysis. Self-reported participant characteristic such as age, gender and weight were collected. Participants were also asked to report the amount of time they spent sitting during the day and their physical activity levels over the last 7 days (International Physical Activity Questionnaire, short form). Physical function was also assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index 8 physical function subscale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207