Fatigue and its relationship with physical activity, age, and body composition in adults with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objectives of this exploratory study were (1) to describe the experience of fatigue in adults with cerebral palsy (CP) inclusive of all levels of the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS); and (2) to determine if physical activity level, sedentary time, age, or body composition can predict fatigue in adults with CP. METHOD: An observational study was conducted in an outpatient setting in Ontario, Canada. Participants included adults with CP (n=41; GMFCS levels I-V; mean age 33.7y, standard deviation [SD] 12.3y). Fatigue was measured using the Fatigue Impact and Severity Self-Assessment (FISSA) questionnaire. Habitual physical activity and sedentary time were measured using accelerometry. Body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference were reported as measures of body composition. RESULTS: The mean (SD) FISSA score for all participants was 84.5 (30.6), ranging from 54.0 (18.3) (GMFCS level I) to 93.6 (21.9) (GMFCS level V). Significant positive relationships (regression coefficient β [95% confidence intervals]) were observed between BMI and FISSA scores (1.9 [0.73-3.1]), waist circumference and FISSA scores (0.71 [0.19-1.2]), and age and FISSA scores (0.99 [0.26-1.7]). A significant negative relationship was observed between moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per hour and FISSA scores -6.4 [-12 to -0.83]). Backwards stepwise regression analysis revealed BMI (1.8 [0.61-2.9]) and MVPA per hour (-5.4 [-10 to -0.30]) were significant predictors of FISSA scores. INTERPRETATION: Health care providers should consider the importance of weight management and physical activity to prevent and treat fatigue in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".