Determination of somatotype and physical activity level in frailty older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To determine the somatotype profile and level of physical activity in older adults. Methods: Seventy-two older adults were divided into two groups: frail (F = 33) and non-frail (NF = 39). Frailty status was determined using the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), somatotype using the Heath and Carter method, and physical activity by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Results: Somatotype analysis showed a predominance of endomorphy (F = 6.54 ± 1.65 vs NF = 6.12 ± 2.07 p ≤ 0.350) followed by mesomorphy (F = 3.44 ± 1.62 vs NF = 3.15 ± 2.19, p ≤ 0.531) and ectomorphy (F = 0.82 ± 0.99 vs NF = 0.95 ± 0.86 p ≤ 0.163), but no significant differences were observed between groups. Regarding PA, twenty-eight participants (84.7%) of the F group were classified as sedentary and insufficiently active and twenty-one (53.8%) of NF were classified as active and very active. This difference in PA explains the higher total energy expenditure found in NF (median 1,087.43; IAQ = 3,954.30) when compared to F (median = 0.0; IAQ = 462.64 p ≤ 0.001). The frailty group presented a higher endomorphic component as well as lower levels of physical activity and energy expenditure. Conclusion: Endomorphy was the predominant somatotype in F and NF older adults, followed by mesomorphy and actomorphy this profile can affect activities of daily living, functional capacity, and independent living and be associated with chronic diseases.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".