Changes in Physical and Cognitive Function Predict Sedentary Behavior in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current longitudinal study examined the influence of cognitive and lower extremity function on sedentary behavior continuously over 6 months in community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Multilevel models examined Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) change scores and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) on percent time in sedentary behavior among 17 older adults with MCI (50 to 74 observations for analysis). Sedentary behavior was measured daily and averaged monthly using wrist-worn actigraphy. Each 1-unit decrease in MoCA score was associated with an increase of 2 percentage points in sedentary behavior ( p ≤ 0.01). In addition, each 1-unit decrease in chair stand score (lower extremity strength) was associated with an increase of 5 percentage points in sedentary behavior ( p ≤ 0.01). Older adults experiencing cognitive decline and concurrent changes in lower extremity strength had the sharpest increase in sedentary behavior. Findings suggest lower body strengthening interventions may reduce sedentary behavior time and subsequently preserve physical functioning in this vulnerable population. [ Research in Gerontological Nursing, 14 (6), 285–291.]
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".