MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2591096430 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172804

Physical performance analysis: A new approach to assessing free-living physical activity in musculoskeletal pain and mobility-limited populations

2017· article· en· W2591096430 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Smuck, Christy Tomkins‐Lane, Ma Agnes Ith, Renata Jarosz, Ming‐Chih Kao

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyPopulationAccelerometerMusculoskeletal painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineMusculoskeletal injuryPhysical therapyComputer scienceEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of physical performance in individuals with musculoskeletal pain is essential. Accelerometry is a powerful tool for this purpose, yet the current methods designed to evaluate energy expenditure are not optimized for this population. The goal of this study is to empirically derive a method of accelerometry analysis specifically for musculoskeletal pain populations. METHODS: We extracted data from 6,796 participants in the 2003-4 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) including: 7-day accelerometry, health and pain questionnaires, and anthropomorphics. Custom macros were used for data processing, complex survey regression analyses, model selection, and statistical adjustment. After controlling for a multitude of variables that influence physical activity, we investigated whether distinct accelerometry profiles accompany pain in different locations of the body; and we identified the intensity intervals that best characterized these profiles. RESULTS: Unique accelerometry profiles were observed for pain in different body regions, logically clustering together based on proximity. Based on this, the following novel intervals (counts/minute) were identified and defined: Performance Sedentary (PSE) = 1-100, Performance Light 1 (PL1) = 101-350, Performance Light 2 (PL2) = 351-800, Performance Light 3 (PL3) = 801-2500, and Performance Moderate/Vigorous (PMV) = 2501-30000. The refinement of accelerometry signals into these new intervals, including 3 distinct ranges that fit inside the established light activity range, best captures alterations in real-life physical performance as a result of regional pain. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: These new accelerometry intervals provide a model for objective measurement of real-life physical performance in people with pain and musculoskeletal disorders, with many potential uses. They may be used to better evaluate the relationship between pain and daily physical function, monitor musculoskeletal disease progression, gauge disease severity, inform exercise prescription, and quantify the functional impact of treatments. Based on these findings, we recommend that future studies of pain and musculoskeletal disorders analyze accelerometry output based on these new "physical performance" intervals.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→