An Exploration of Sedentary Behavior Patterns in Community-Dwelling People With Stroke: A Cluster-Based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Long periods of daily sedentary time, particularly accumulated in long uninterrupted bouts, are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. People with stroke are at high risk of recurrent events and prolonged sedentary time may increase this risk. We aimed to explore how people with stroke distribute their periods of sedentary behavior, which factors influence this distribution, and whether sedentary behavior clusters can be distinguished? METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of original accelerometry data from adults with stroke living in the community. We conducted data-driven clustering analyses to identify unique accumulation patterns of sedentary time across participants, followed by multinomial logistical regression to determine the association between the clusters, and the total amount of sedentary time, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), walking speed, and wake time. RESULTS: Participants in the highest quartile of total sedentary time accumulated a significantly higher proportion of their sedentary time in prolonged bouts (P < 0.001). Six unique accumulation patterns were identified, all of which were characterized by high sedentary time. Total sedentary time, age, gender, BMI, and walking speed were significantly associated with the probability of a person being in a specific accumulation pattern cluster, P < 0.001 - P = 0.002. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Although unique accumulation patterns were identified, there is not just one accumulation pattern for high sedentary time. This suggests that interventions to reduce sedentary time must be individually tailored.Video Abstract available for more insight from the authors (see the Video Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A343).
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".