Balance confidence, quality of life, and exercise habits among healthy post-menopausal females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:To examine baseline levels of balance confidence, quality of life (QOL), and physical activity among healthy post-menopausal women between 50 and 90 years of age. Method:Twenty-four participants (Mage = 58.8, SD =4.6) completed a questionnaire inventory consisting of the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale, the Short-Form 36 Health Survey, the QOL Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis, and a questionnaire assessing activities performed in the previous 4 weeks. Results:Participants reported high levels of balance confidence (M = 95.48, SD = 5.69). Participants reported high energy levels, high general health perceptions, high mental functioning and emotional well-being, and high physical functioning in the areas of activities of daily living, jobs around the house, mobility, and leisure/social activities. Hours of physical activity were positively related to reported energy levels (r = 0.41, p< .05). Reported energy levels had a significant (p< .05), positive relationship with emotional well-being (r = .68), social functioning (r = .47), mobility (r = .52), perceptions of general health (r = .57), mental functioning (r = .44), and overall QOL (r = .44). Discussion:The women who participated in this study appear to have high levels of physical functioning and QOL. A strong link between physical activity and energy levels was observed. This may have important implications for the participant's QOL. The data presented here are part of a 10-year longitudinal study examining the relationship between exercise participation, dietary habits, bone mineral density, and QOL.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".