Reliability and validity of daily physical activity measures during inpatient spinal cord injury rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the test-retest reliability and convergent validity of daily physical activity measures during inpatient spinal cord injury rehabilitation. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Two inpatient spinal cord injury rehabilitation centres. SUBJECTS: Participants (n = 106) were recruited from consecutive admissions to rehabilitation. METHODS: Physical activity during inpatient spinal cord injury rehabilitation stay was recorded on two days via (1) wrist accelerometer, (2) hip accelerometer if ambulatory, and (3) self-report (Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury questionnaire). Spearman's correlations and Bland-Altman plots were utilized for test-retest reliability. Correlations between physical activity measures and clinical measures (functional independence, hand function, and ambulation) were performed. RESULTS: Correlations for physical activity measures between Day 1 and Day 2 were moderate to high (ρ = 0.53-0.89). Bland-Altman plots showed minimal bias and more within-subject differences in more active individuals and wide limits of agreement. None of these three physical activity measures correlated with one another. A moderate correlation was found between wrist accelerometry counts and grip strength (ρ = 0.58) and between step counts and measures of ambulation (ρ = 0.62). Functional independence was related to wrist accelerometry (ρ = 0.70) and step counts (ρ = 0.56), but not with self-report. CONCLUSION: The test-retest reliability and convergent validity of the instrumented measures suggest that wrist and hip accelerometers are appropriate tools for use in research studies of daily physical activity in the spinal cord injury rehabilitation setting but are too variable for individual use.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".