Investigating the type, intensity, and duration of activities of daily living as a potential avenue for increasing physical activity participation among people with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the benefits of physical activity, most people with spinal cord injury (SCI) are insufficiently active to achieve fitness benefits. While most SCI and physical activity research has focused on leisure-time physical activity, few studies have examined activities of daily living (ADL). Purpose: To describe and compare 1) self-reported intensities and durations of specific ADL, and 2) minutes/day spent on ADL across key demographic groups. Methods: Participants were 695 adults with SCI (76% men, Mage=46.81±13.41, Myears-post-injury=15.19±11.10). ADL were assessed over the telephone using the Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with SCI. MANOVAs were computed to test for differences in intensities and durations of different ADL (objective 1) and between-group differences in min/day of ADL (objective 2). Results: Overall, participants reported 127.92+142.79 minutes/day of ADL with significantly more time spent in mild intensity (78.93+104.62 minutes/day) than moderate (40.23+68.71 minutes/day) or heavy intensity ADL (8.75+24.53 minutes/day). Four patterns emerged with respect to ADL type, duration, and intensity, with some ADL being typically performed at lighter, or heavier, intensities than others. There were significant differences in minutes/day of ADL intensity and duration between groups based on education, injury severity, and mode of mobility (ps < 0.05). Conclusion: Given that some groups were more likely to engage in moderate-heavy intensity ADL, and some ADL are more likely to be performed at moderate-heavy intensities, interventions that target key groups to engage in specific ADL (e.g., wheeling) may be one strategy to enhance physical activity participation among people with SCI.
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 | 0.001 | 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".