Older Adults’ Physical Activity and Exergames: A Systematic 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
Exertion games, also referred to as exergames, have become popular because they combine physical activity (PA) with game mechanics, such as actions, challenges, and achievements. Exergames have been also used to encourage PA among older adults, as technological interventions to help achieve the latters’ health and wellness goals and as aids to rehabilitation. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review of empirical studies on exergaming and older adults’ PA has been reported in the literature. Our review indicates that exergames make a measurable contribution to the improvement of health and wellness goals of older adults. Our systematic review identifies 9 categories and 19 themes of exergame applications in the domain of older adults’ PA. We aggregate these categories and themes into three broader exergaming clusters, of “training,” “rehabilitation,” and “wellness.” Additionally, we outline pathways for future empirical research into applying exergames as health and wellness interventions for older adults through physical activities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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