Identifying the Optimal Parameters to Express the Capacity–Activity Interrelationship of Community-Dwelling Older Adults Using Wearable Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobility is the primary indicator of quality of life among older adults. Physical capacity (PC) and physical activity (PA) are two determinants of mobility; however, PC and PA are complex constructs represented by numerous parameters. This research sought to identify the optimal parameters that may be used to represent PC and PA of older adults, while exploring the interrelationship of these two constructs. Participants were 76 community-dwelling older adults (M age = 74.05 ± 5.15 yrs.). The McRoberts MoveTest was used to objectively measure PC in the laboratory with the following tests: the Short Physical Performance Battery, the Sway test, Sit to Stands, and the Timed Up and Go. PA was then measured at home for one week using the McRoberts USB Dynaport. Correlation analyses resulted in 55% and 65% reductions of PC and PA parameters, respectively. Clustering identified five representative PC parameters and five representative PA parameters. Canonical correlation analysis identified a non-significant correlation between the two sets of parameters. A novel approach was used to define PC and PA by systematically reducing these constructs into representative parameters that provide clinically relevant information, suggesting that they are an accurate representation of one's PC and PA. A non-significant correlation between PC and PA suggests that there is no relationship between the two in this sample of community-dwelling older adults. The research provided insight into two important determinants of older adult mobility, and how they influence each other.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".