MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318913469 · doi:10.1037/rep0000485

Mental health and physical activity in SCI: Is anxiety sensitivity important?

2023· article· en· W4318913469 on OpenAlexaff
Emma M. Connell, Janine V. Olthuis

Bibliographic record

VenueRehabilitation Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyAnxiety sensitivityMental healthPsychologyClinical psychologyPsycINFOPopulationDepression (economics)TetraplegiaSpinal cord injuryPsychiatryMedicineMEDLINESpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compared to research conducted with nondisabled samples, little is known about the relation between mental health and physical activity (PA) in individuals with a spinal cord injury (SCI). Despite this population being more at risk of experiencing anxiety and depression and less likely to engage in PA, few studies have investigated other factors that may impact this association in this population such as anxiety sensitivity (AS). AS is a fear of physiological arousal sensations, and importantly has been shown to be negatively associated with PA in people without disabilities. It is unknown if the changes to how one experiences physiological sensations after a SCI impacts the relation between AS and PA. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated which forms of PA are predicted by anxiety and depression and whether AS is predictive of PA in this population. RESEARCH METHOD: 98 participants with a SCI (both paraplegia and tetraplegia) completed an online questionnaire that had measures of PA, AS, and anxiety and depression. RESULTS: It was found that symptoms of anxiety were significantly associated with mild-intensity PA. Interestingly AS was positively associated with moderate-intensity PA. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that the relation between mental health and PA in this sample may not mirror what has been found in people without disabilities. More research is needed to replicate these findings as well as to investigate other potential mechanisms that may be relevant for people with a SCI. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.429 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRehabilitation PsychologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207