24-Hour Movement Behaviors Among US Adults With Functional Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to quantify and compare physical activity, sitting time, and sleep behaviors among US adults with and without disabilities using the 2020 Canadian 24-hour movement framework. The weighted prevalence of 24-hour movement guideline adherence was estimated among a nationally representative sample from the 2017 to 2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of US adults (18-65 years old) with (n = 1070) and without (n = 33,370) functional disabilities in vision, hearing, mobility, cognitive, and self-care domains. The adjusted odds of single and combination guideline compliance were estimated by disability type, in reference to adults without disabilities, using separate multivariable logistic regressions. After adjusting for age, sex, and income, adults with disabilities in mobility, cognitive, or self-care domains had approximately half the odds of meeting all 3 guidelines, compared with adults without disabilities (adjusted odds range: 0.49-0.77). Significantly lower adherence was observed among adults with functional disabilities, compared with no disabilities, for sleep, and moderate to vigorous physical activity, but not sedentary guidelines. This report establishes baseline prevalence estimates for guidelines compliance among US adults with functional disabilities ages 18-65 years old. Low guideline adherence, and evidence for significant differences in physical activity and sleep, signals a need to further explore combination health behaviors among adults with disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".