Physical Activity and Multimorbidity Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the relationship between physical activity (PA) and multimorbidity in community-dwelling older adults. DATA SOURCE: A systematic review and meta-analysis in the following databases: Pubmed, Lilacs, Scielo, Web of Science, Scopus, and AgeLine. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: It included observational studies investigating the association between physical activity and multimorbidity, with older adults, published until May 2021. Studies with institutionalized individuals or that assessed specific diseases were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted the studies based on previous inclusion and exclusion criteria, started by selecting titles, followed by abstracts and full-text reading. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analysis results were reported as Odds Ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval using R language. The Newcastle Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the systematic review, from which 12 reported an inverse association between physical activity and multimorbidity. In the meta-analysis, from over 77 000 older adults, there was an inverse association between physical activity and multimorbidity [OR: .81; 95% CI: .73-.89]. We found significant results only for men in the analysis by sex. CONCLUSIONS: Low levels of physical activity were associated with a higher risk of multimorbidity in older adults. It is expected that public policies will be conducted aimed at the practice of physical activity among older adults.
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 | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".