MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323029405 · doi:10.22259/2639-1805.0302005

Physiology of Detraining in Older Population: Pandemic Time Considerations

2020· article· en· W4323029405 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Maria Anaya, Diego Serna, Paula Maria da Costa Torres, Nestor Bustamante, Paola Callejas, Jorge García, Claudia Escobar, Hugo Pabon, Mauricio Garzón

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Physical Health and Sports Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PopulationMedicineGerontologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Environmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With population aging, physical activity is among the factors that determine quality of life.A considerable numberof elders do not meet the minimum requirements for physical activity or are sedentary.Moreover, adults who were physically active can decrease their activity due to diseases or even the confinement generated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Therefore, it is important to describe the characteristics of detraining in the elderly populationto determine how detraining impacts the biological systems of human body, and the deleterious effects that converge with aging per se, making it difficult to determine the influence of each in the physical health of individuals.It is remarkable how quickly the deleterious effects of detraining occur, which shows the importance of maintaining a physically active life at the appropriate intensity throughout life.The aim of this review is to describe the effects of training cessation on the cardiovascular, pulmonary, metabolic, and musculoskeletal systems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Physical Health and Sports Medicine→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→