A systematic review examining associations between physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep duration with quality of life in older adults aged 65 years and above
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review examined the associations between movement behaviours (i.e., physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep duration) and quality of life (QOL) in adults ≥65 years of age. Four databases were searched in June 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if published within the last 20 years, peer-reviewed, examined apparently healthy older adults, and analysed ≥2 movement behaviours together. QOL was represented by the World Health Organization Quality of Life measure which conceptualizes QOL by distinct domains. Study results were categorized and presented by domain. Risk of bias was completed for all included studies using methods described in the Cochrane Handbook. Thirty-one studies with 307 292 participants were included that examined QOL outcomes across seven domains: superdomain (composite measures), perceived physical health, mental and psychological states, level of independence, social relationships, environment, and general health. Findings indicated that moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity was favourably associated with QOL. Time re-allocation studies that showed moving time into physical activity from sedentary behaviour were associated with favourable QOL changes. The evidence regarding sedentary behaviour and sleep duration was inconsistent. The quality of evidence was very low for all domains. In conclusion, there is consistent evidence that physical activity improves QOL in adults ≥65 years of age. International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration No.: CRD42021260566.
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 | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".