Is temperature associated with daily steps/day during pulmonary rehabilitation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A recent systematic review highlighted the need to examine steps / day correlates during pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) that extend beyond the intrapersonal (e.g., age, disease severity) level. The purpose of the current study was determine whether daily temperature was significantly associated with daily steps at the beginning and end of PR. Methods: 194 patients (mean age = 66.15; 54% male) wore a pedometer for 7 days and recorded their daily steps in a log book at the beginning, end, 3, and 9 months after completing PR. For purposes of the current analysis, we only examined the PR assessments. Next, patients’ addresses were linked to environment Canada’s weather data for each day they wore the pedometer to obtain the average daily temperature for the beginning and end of PR assessments. Results: Separate linear growth models were conducted in MPlus 7.0 (i.e., 1 for each assessment period) using daily temperature as time varying covariate to examine its association with steps / day controlling for age and gender. Results showed daily temperature was significantly associated with daily steps at the beginning of PR (beta’s ranged from .10 to .20, p < .01), but not the end of PR. Conclusions: It appears that when patients are in the early stages of their PR, daily temperature may be associated with the number of steps they take on a daily basis. However, as they progress through their PR, temperature becomes less important.Acknowledgments: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".