e-Health Interventions for Healthy Aging: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundHealthy aging (HA) is a contemporary challenge for population health worldwide. Electronic health (e-Health) interventions have the potential to support empowerment and education of adults aged 50 and over. Objectives To summarize evidence on the effectiveness of e-Health interventions on HA and explore how specific e-Health interventions and their characteristics effectively impact HA.MethodsA systematic review was conducted based on the Cochrane Collaboration methods including any experimental study design published in French, Dutch, Spanish and English from 2000 to 2018. Results Fourteen studies comparing various e-Health interventions to multiple components controls were included. In almost all the cases, e-Health interventions have strengthened or improved altogether physical activity outcome (e.g. walking), psychological outcome (e.g. memory) and promoted healthy behavior (e.g. healthy eating). Finally, significant improvements in clinical parameters (e.g. blood pressure) were found.ConclusionsThis systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the effectiveness of e-Health interventions in supporting HA.
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.
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 | 0.082 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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 it