Effects of physical activity and sitting on health outcomes in adults with whiplash associated disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In spite of known detrimental effects of physical inactivity and sitting, little is known about levels of physical activity (PA) and sitting in adults with chronic whiplash associated disorders (WAD) and their effects on health outcomes.Methods This cross-sectional study compared PA and sitting levels between 258 adults with WAD and 30 healthy controls. Adults with WAD were divided into four categories based on achieving ‘low’ or moderate-to-vigorous PA (‘MVPA’) levels and sitting greater (‘high sit’)/less (‘low sit’) than 8 hours daily on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Kruskal-Wallis tests compared health outcomes across these categories, followed by Mann–Whitney tests for pairwise comparisons.Results Adults with WAD demonstrated lower levels of PA (2151 vs. 4097 MET minutes/week, p<.001), and higher levels of sitting (343 vs. 232 min per day, p<.001) than healthy controls. Significant differences were found between all four categories on all five health outcomes (pain intensity, pain interference, disability, physical health, mental health). Low PA/High Sit had higher disability and lower physical and mental health when compared to MVPA/High Sit and MVPA/Low Sit. Low PA/Low Sit demonstrated higher pain intensity than other groups; higher pain interference and disability and lower physical and mental health when compared to MVPA/High Sit or MVPA/Low Sit.Conclusions Adults with WAD demonstrated lower levels of PA and higher levels of sitting. Achieving recommended levels of MVPA appeared to be associated with better health outcomes, regardless of sitting times. Both levels of PA and sitting need to be considered in management of WAD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".