Physical activity and sedentary behaviour in children with spina bifida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe active and sedentary time in children with spina bifida and to compare their physical activity on weekdays versus weekends. METHOD: In this exploratory cross-sectional study, data from 13 Canadian and 22 Dutch children with spina bifida (14 females, 21 males; mean age 10y 11mo, standard deviation [SD] 3y 6mo, range 5y 6mo-18y; Hoffer classification distribution: community [n=28], household [n=3], non-functional [n=3], and non-ambulator [n=1]) were analysed. Objective measures of physical activity and sedentary behaviour were obtained by using ActiGraph or Actiheart activity monitors. Data for the participants wearing the ActiGraph were compared with age- and sex-matched controls that were developing typically using independent-samples t-tests. Activity data collected on weekdays was compared to those on weekends. RESULTS: ActiGraph data demonstrated children with spina bifida spent more time sedentary (mean [SD] 49.5min/h [5.78]) and less time in moderate to vigorous physical activity (mean [SD] 2.33min/h [1.61]) compared with the typically developing group (mean [SD] 41.0min/h [5.76] and 5.46min/h [2.13], p=0.001 and p<0.001 respectively). For both ActiGraph- and Actiheart-derived data, physical activity and sedentary time were not significantly different between weekdays and weekends. INTERPRETATION: Children with spina bifida have reduced levels of physical activity and increased sedentary behaviour, with no statistical differences seen between weekdays and weekends. Several methodological issues related to activity monitoring warrant consideration when choosing the appropriate method to quantify physical activity and sedentary behaviour. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Reduced levels of physical activity and sedentary time were quantified in children with spina bifida. Objective quantification of physical behaviour in ambulatory and non-ambulatory school-aged children with spina bifida is possible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".