Bidirectional associations of accelerometer-assessed physical activity and sedentary time with physical function among older English adults: the EPIC-Norfolk cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To develop healthy ageing interventions, longitudinal associations between objectively assessed physical behaviours and physical function need to be better understood. We assessed associations between accelerometer-assessed total physical activity (PA), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), light physical activity (LPA), sedentary time and prolonged sedentary bout time, and clinically assessed physical function (grip strength, usual walking speed (UWS), chair stand speed) at two time-points in 3188 participants (≥ 60 years) of the EPIC-Norfolk study. Bidirectional associations were assessed using multivariable linear regression. Over an average of 6.1 years, baseline physical behaviours (greater total PA, MVPA and LPA, and less sedentary time) were associated with better subsequent walking and chair stand speed. Better baseline physical function was associated with better follow-up physical behaviours. There were no bidirectional associations between changes in physical behaviours and grip strength. Improvements in UWS were associated with improvements in all physical behaviours. Improvements in chair stand speed were associated with improvements in total PA, MVPA, and sedentary bout time. Improvements in physical behaviours were associated with improvements in UWS (3.1 cm/s/yr per 100 cpm/yr total PA, 3.6 cm/s/yr per hr/day/yr MVPA, 2.5 cm/s/yr per hr/day/yr LPA, - 2.9 cm/s/yr per hour/day/yr sedentary time, and - 1.6 cm/s/yr per hr/day/yr prolonged sedentary bout time). Only improvements in total PA, MVPA and sedentary bout time were associated with improvements in chair stand speed. In conclusion, we found bidirectional associations between changes in some physical behaviours and physical function and between baseline physical behaviours and subsequent physical function, highlighting the importance of considering the full range of physical behaviours to promote healthy ageing. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10433-022-00733-y.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".