Relationship between physical activity and health in individuals with intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary Individuals with intellectual disability are less physically active and have more health problems than the general population. This paper is about information gathered from family members on health and physical activity levels of people with intellectual disability. Health of people with intellectual disability do not differ according to the frequency and the intensity of physical activity. Research is important for people with intellectual disability because our results helped better understand the need for developing physical activity guidelines specifically for this population and strategies to encourage them to be more physically active. Abstract Background The frequency and intensity of physical activity are directly related to health in the general population. However, to our knowledge, no study has looked at that relationship in people with intellectual disability. Method The aim of this study was to determine whether there were differences in the health of 407 people with intellectual disability according to the frequency and intensity of physical activity. The method involved cross‐sectional study of secondary data. Findings Results showed that the ability to express pain, number of orthopaedic and physiotherapy consultations, body mass index and percentage of psychosis/schizophrenia diagnoses differed with the frequency and intensity of physical activity. Conclusion Other studies are needed to learn more about physical activity factors that could improve the health of people with intellectual disability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".