Physical Activity Habits Among Older Adults Living With Rheumatic Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe levels of physical activity (PA) in older adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and study the association between PA level and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Using data from FORWARD, a cross-sectional analysis was performed among adults aged 65 years and older with RMDs to assess the levels of PA. PA was categorized as high (vigorously active for at least 30 minutes, 3 times per week), moderate (moderately active for at least 3 times per week) or low (seldom active). We assessed the self-reported levels of PA among patients with different types of RMDs and assessed the association between levels of PA and PROs, including the 29-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) assessment. RESULTS: Among the 3343 eligible participants, rheumatoid arthritis (68%) was the most common RMD. High PA was reported by 457 (13.6%) participants, and 1820 (54.4%) reported moderate activity. Overall, participants reported a median of 7 (IQR 0-15) days of moderate to vigorous level of PA for ≥ 30 min per month. Obese participants were significantly more likely to report low levels of activity (44% of obese compared to 25% of nonobese individuals). Participants with low PA levels had higher (worse) pain scores, higher (worse) Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores, higher depression rates, and worse PROMIS-29 scores related to pain, sleep and fatigue. CONCLUSION: Among patients with RMDs, levels of high PA were relatively low among older patients. These observations, though descriptive, support a relationship between physical inactivity and obesity, depression, poor sleep, and fatigue in patients with RMDs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".