Measuring Activity Performance of Older Adults Using the activPAL: A Rapid Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current measures of physical activity and sedentary behaviors such as questionnaires and functional assessments are insufficient to provide comprehensive data on older adults. In response, the use of activity monitors has increased. The purpose of this review was to summarize and assess the quality of observational literature on activity measuring of older adults using the activPAL activity monitor. Seventeen databases and a bibliography, compiled by the activPAL creators, were searched. Articles were included if they were in English, were peer-reviewed, included people 65 years or older, measured activity using the activPAL and reported at least one of the following outcomes: step count, hours upright, hours sitting/lying, hours stepping, or hours standing. The search revealed 404 titles; after exclusions 24 were included in the final review. Of these studies, one examined older adults from residential aged care, six from hospital in-patient clinics, nine from outpatient clinics and eight examined community-dwellers. Mean age ranged from 66.0 to 84.2 years. Not all studies reported similar outcome variables, preventing data pooling. The review found a lack of high quality articles. There may be limitations to using the activPAL among older adults but further research is required to examine its use 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.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it