MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389043314 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294784

Comparison of national and international sedentary behaviour and physical activity guidelines for older adults: A systematic review and quality appraisal with AGREE II

2023· review· en· W4389043314 on OpenAlexafffund
A.-L Huang, Ellen Wang, Stephanie Sanger, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου, Isabel B. Rodrigues

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalResearch CanadaImpactUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster UniversityAGE-WELLHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsCINAHLSystematic reviewMedicineMEDLINEGerontologyRandomized controlled trialCritical appraisalPhysical therapyPsychological interventionAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most older adults 65 years and older accumulate over 8.5 hours/day of sedentary time, which is associated with increased risk of metabolic syndromes and falls. The impact of increased sedentary time in older adults has prompted development of sedentary behaviour guidelines. The purpose of our review was to compare national and international sedentary behaviour and physical activity guidelines for older adults and appraise the quality of guidelines using AGREE II. We conducted our search in Medline, Embase, Global Health, Web of Science, CINAHL, and relevant grey literature. We included the most recent guidelines for older adults written in English. We identified 18 national and international guidelines; ten of the 18 guidelines included sedentary behaviour recommendations while all 18 included physical activity recommendations for older adults. The ten sedentary behaviour guidelines were developed using cohort studies, knowledge users' opinions, systematic reviews, or other guidelines while the physical activity guidelines were developed using randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and overview of reviews. The definition of sedentary behaviour and the recommendations were inconsistent between the guidelines and were based on very low to low quality and certainty of evidence. All guidelines provided consistent recommendations for aerobic and resistance training; the recommendations were developed using moderate to high quality and certainty of evidence. Only eight physical activity guidelines provided recommendations for balance training and six on flexibility training; the balance training recommendations were consistent between guidelines and based on moderate quality evidence. Further work is needed to develop evidenced-based sedentary behaviour recommendations and flexibility training recommendations for older adults.

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)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.261
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.261
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.023
Bibliometrics0.0260.022
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.479
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.054 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→