Do Older Brazilian Women Who Participate in a Regular Physical Exercise Program Have Higher Habitual Physical Activity Levels? A Cross-Sectional Study Based on Accelerometer Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cross-sectional study was conducted to compare the habitual physical activity level, measured by accelerometry, gait performance, assessed by the GAITRite® system, handgrip strength, and static balance between older Brazilian women who participate (n = 50; 70.7 ± 5.5 years) and do not participate (n = 50; 70.1 ± 5.6 years) in a regular physical exercise program, and to investigate whether participation in a regular exercise program ensures compliance with physical activity recommendations. Older women who participated in a regular physical exercise program had significantly shorter sedentary activity time (effect size [ES] = 0.54), longer moderate activity time (ES = 0.85), and higher energy expenditure (ES = 0.64), number of steps (ES = 0.82), gait speed (ES = 0.49), and step length (ES = 0.45). However, regular participation in an exercise program did not guarantee compliance with physical activity recommendations. Behavioral changes to increase physical activity levels among older women who do and do not participate in a regular exercise program are necessary.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".