COMPARISON OF SEDENTARY BEHAVIOR GUIDELINES FOR OLDER ADULTS: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND QUALITY APPRAISAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most older adults (≥65 years) accumulate >8.5 hours/day of continuous sedentary time, which is associated with increased risk of metabolic syndromes and falls. The impact of increased sedentary time in older adults globally has prompted the development of national and international sedentary behaviour guidelines. The purpose of our review was to identify and compare national and international sedentary behaviour guidelines for older adults and appraise the quality of the guidelines to promote best practice in guideline development. We conducted our search in Medline, Embase, Global Health and relevant grey literature. We included the most updated guidelines for older adults written in English. AGREE II was used to assess the quality of the recommendations. We identified eight national and international sedentary behaviour guidelines for older adults. The guidelines were developed from reviews, cohort studies, knowledge user opinions, or other guidelines; all guidelines were based on low quality and certainty of evidence. The terms “sedentary behaviour” and “sedentary time” were used interchangeably, and the definitions of both terms were not consistent between guidelines. Six guidelines recommended a reduction in total time with one suggesting limiting sedentary time to < 8 hours/day. Three guidelines suggested reallocating sedentary time to light activity, with one recommending to stand-and-stretch every hour for 5-minutes. Most sedentary behaviour guidelines for older adults are based on low quality and low certainty evidence. Terminology, definitions, and recommendations were not consistent between guidelines. Further work is needed to develop evidenced-based recommendations specific to 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 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 | 0.076 | 0.278 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".