Physical activity monitoring in Alzheimer’s disease during sport interventions: a multi-methodological perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Assessment methods for physical activity and fitness are of upmost importance due to the possible beneficial effect of physical conditioning on neurodegenerative diseases. The implementation of these methods can be challenging when examining elderly or cognitively impaired participants. In the presented study, we compared three different assessment methods for physical activity from the Dementia-MOVE trial, a 6-months intervention study on physical activity in Alzheimer's disease. The aim was to determine the comparability of physical activity assessments in elderly participants with cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease. Material or methods: 38 participants (mean age 70 ± 7 years) with early-stage Alzheimer's disease (mean MoCA 18.84 ± 4.87) were assessed with (1) fitness trackers for an average of 12 (± 6) days, (2) a written diary on daily activities and (3) a questionnaire on physical activity at three intervention timepoints. For comparison purposes, we present a transformation and harmonization method of the physical assessment output parameters: Metabolic equivalent of task (MET) scores, activity intensity minutes, calorie expenditure and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) scores were derived from all three modalities. The resulting parameters were compared for absolute differences, correlation, and their influence by possible mediating factors such as cognitive state and markers from cerebrospinal fluid. Results: Participants showed high acceptance and compliance to all three assessment methods. MET scores and MVPA from fitness trackers and diaries showed high overlap, whilst results from the questionnaire suggest that participants tended to overestimate their physical activity in the long-term retrospective assessment. All activity parameters were independent of the tested Alzheimer's disease parameters, showing that not only fitness trackers, but also diaries can be successfully applied for physical activity assessment in a sample affected by early-stage Alzheimer's disease. Discussion: Our results show that fitness trackers and physical activity diaries have the highest robustness, leading to a highly comparable estimation of physical activity in people with Alzheimer's disease. As assessed parameters, it is recommendable to focus on MET, MVPA and on accelerometric sensor data such as step count, and less on activity calories and different activity intensities which are dependent on different variables and point to a lower reliability.
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 | 0.176 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".