MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Characterizing Habitual Physical Activity And Sedentary Time Inpatients With An Acquired Brain Injury

2023· article· en· W4387055065 on OpenAlexaff
Liam P. Pellerine, Katerina Millar, Ryan J. Frayne, Myles W. O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical activityTraumatic brain injuryHeadachesStroke (engine)AnxietyAcquired brain injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationPsychologySurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with an acquired brain injury (ABI) may experience physical (e.g., headaches, paralysis), mental (e.g., fatigue, anxiety), and social (e.g., lack of motivation) deficits for years after their injury. ABI is an umbrella term that encompasses various injuries, including stroke or brain aneurysm (SBA) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Our understanding of activity levels within ABI populations is limited because it is often collected using inaccurate self-report measures that do not distinguish whether activity varies by injury type. PURPOSE: 1) objectively characterize the habitual activity levels of people with ABI using thigh-worn accelerometry, and 2) compare the activity levels of people with SBA versus mTBI. METHODS: A sample of 11 patients with SBA (60 ± 9 years, 7 females) and 8 patients with mTBI (47 ± 10 years, 7 females) wore an activPAL on their thigh for 24 hr/d for 7-d. RESULTS: In the pooled sample, people with ABI averaged 6.0 ± 2.5 hr/d of upright time, 4.6 ± 1.9 hr/d of standing time, 10.7 ± 2.2 hr/d of sedentary time, 4.9 ± 2.9 hr/d in prolonged sedentary bouts >1-hr, and 2.5 ± 0.6 sedentary breaks/hr. People with ABI accumulated 5981 ± 3163 steps/d, 72 ± 31 min/d of light-intensity physical activity, and 11 ± 15 min/d moderate-vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity. When comparing differences between types of ABI, the SBA group were more sedentary (SBA: 11.6 ± 2.0 hr/d vs. mTBI: 9.2 ± 1.7 hr/d; p = 0.02), engaged in more prolonged sedentary time (6.0 ± 2.7 hr/d vs. 3.1 ± 2.5 hr/d; p = 0.02), and spent less time in upright (5.1 ± 2.1 hr/d vs. 7.5 ± 2.4 hr/d; p = 0.04) and standing postures (3.8 ± 1.6 hr/d vs. 5.7 ± 1.7 hr/d; p = 0.02) than the mTBI group. These differences remained when controlling for age as a covariate (all, p < 0.62). Sedentary break frequency and physical activity levels were not different between groups (all, p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Despite people with ABI being similarly inactive and highly sedentary, the SBA group spent more time in prolonged sedentary postures than the mTBI group. This indicates injury type may influence habitual movement behaviours of patients with ABI. Targeting reductions in sedentary time may be a more feasible strategy to improving movement behaviours than trying to help patients accumulate more physical activity, and injury type may impact time in sedentary postures.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→