MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890427680 · doi:10.1016/j.jphys.2018.08.006

Additional structured physical activity does not improve walking in older people (> 60 years) undergoing inpatient rehabilitation: a randomised trial

2018· article· en· W2890427680 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of physiotherapy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAustralian Physiotherapy Association
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTIONS: Among older people receiving inpatient rehabilitation, does additional supervised physical activity lead to faster self-selected gait speed at discharge? Does additional supervised physical activity lead to better mobility, function and quality of life at discharge and 6 months following discharge? DESIGN: Multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Older people (age>60years) from two Australian hospitals undergoing rehabilitation to improve mobility. INTERVENTION: Participants received multidisciplinary care, including physiotherapy. During hospital rehabilitation, the experimental group (n=99) spent additional time daily performing physical activities that emphasised upright mobility tasks; the control group (n=99) spent equal time participating in social activities. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-selected gait speed was the primary outcome at discharge and a secondary outcome at the 6-month follow-up. Timed Up and Go, De Morton Mobility Index, Functional Independence Measure and quality of life were secondary outcomes at discharge and tertiary outcomes at the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: The experimental group received a median of 20 additional minutes per day (IQR 15.0 to 22.5) of upright activities for a median of 16.5days (IQR 10.0 to 25.0). Gait speed did not differ between groups at discharge. Mean gait speed was 0.51m/s (SD 0.29) in the experimental group and 0.56m/s (SD 0.28) in the control group (effect size -0.06m/s, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.01, p=0.096). No significant differences were detected in other secondary measures. CONCLUSION: While substantial gains in mobility were achieved by older people receiving inpatient rehabilitation, additional physical activity sessions did not lead to better walking outcomes at discharge or 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12613000884707. [Said CM, Morris ME, McGinley JL, Szoeke C, Workman B, Liew D, Hill KD, Woodward M, Wittwer JE, Churilov L, Danoudis M, Bernhardt J (2018) Additional structured physical activity does not improve walking in older people (> 60 years) undergoing inpatient rehabilitation: a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 237-244].

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.342 · 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