MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327899795 · doi:10.2196/43436

Using Wearable Technology to Quantify Physical Activity Recovery: Secondary Report From the AFTER (App-Facilitated Tele-Rehabilitation) Program for COVID-19 Survivors Randomized Study

2023· article· en· W4327899795 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Churchill, Mary Morrow, Jacob J. Capin, Sarah E. Jolley, Kristine Hare, Samantha MaWhinney, Jennifer E. Stevens‐Lapsley, Kristine M. Erlandson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute on AgingNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismGeriatric Research Education and Clinical CenterNIH Clinical CenterNational Institutes of HealthVanderbilt UniversityU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsTelerehabilitationMedicinePhysical activityCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)RehabilitationPhysical therapyRepeated measures designRandomized controlled trialTelemedicineInternal medicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knowledge on physical activity recovery after COVID-19 survival is limited. The AFTER (App-Facilitated Tele-Rehabilitation) program for COVID-19 survivors randomized participants, following hospital discharge, to either education and unstructured physical activity or a telerehabilitation program. Step count data were collected as a secondary outcome, and we found no significant differences in total step count trajectories between groups at 6 weeks. Further step count data were not analyzed. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this analysis was to examine step count trajectories and correlates among all participants (combined into a single group) across the 12-week study period. METHODS: Linear mixed models with random effects were used to model daily steps over the number of study days. Models with 0, 1, and 2 inflection points were considered, and the final model was selected based on the highest log-likelihood value. RESULTS: Participants included 44 adults (41 with available Fitbit [Fitbit LLC] data). Initially, step counts increased by an average of 930 (95% CI 547-1312; P<.001) steps per week, culminating in an average daily step count of 7658 (95% CI 6257-9059; P<.001) at the end of week 3. During the remaining 9 weeks of the study, weekly step counts increased by an average of 67 (95% CI -30 to 163; P<.001) steps per week, resulting in a final estimate of 8258 (95% CI 6933-9584; P<.001) steps. CONCLUSIONS: Participants showed a marked improvement in daily step counts during the first 3 weeks of the study, followed by more gradual improvement in the remaining 9 weeks. Physical activity data and step count recovery trajectories may be considered surrogates for physiological recovery, although further research is needed to examine this relationship. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04663945; https://tinyurl.com/2p969ced.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207