A national survey of physical activity after spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity is a powerful modifiable risk factor for disease and mortality. Physical activity levels in people with spinal cord injury (SCI) have not been quantified relative to uninjured individuals in a large population-based sample. We aimed to quantify and compare physical activity in people with and without SCI, and to examine the associations between physical activity, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors. The 2010 Canadian Community Health Survey (n > 57,000) was used, which includes three measures that assess physical activity levels (i.e., leisure time activity frequency, leisure time activity intensity, and transportation time activity intensity). Bivariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed and odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. The odds of physical activity in people with SCI were 0.43 (95% CI 0.3-0.61), 0.53 (95% CI 0.36-0.75), and 0.42 (95% CI 0.28-0.61), across the three measures of physical activity, respectively. These differences persisted after adjustment for lifestyle, comorbidities, and socioeconomic factors. Physical activity is reduced in the SCI population compared with the general population. This knowledge is important to direct future research and guide the allocation of health care resources.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".