Leisure time physical activity in middle-aged and older adults aging with long-term spinal cord injury: Changes over six years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regular leisure time physical activity (LTPA) has beneficial health effects in people with spinal cord injury (SCI). Yet, participation in LTPA is low, and little is known about changes many years after injury. OBJECTIVES: To determine changes in LTPA in middle-aged and older adults with long-term SCI over six years, investigate associations with gender, age, injury characteristics and changes in secondary health conditions and activity limitations, and investigate factors related to being physically active or sedentary. METHODS: Part of the Swedish Aging with Spinal Cord Injury Study (SASCIS). LTPA was assessed twice over a six-year period with the Physical Activity Recall Assessment for people with Spinal Cord Injury (n = 75; 32% women, mean age 67 years, mean time since injury 31 years, injury levels C1-L3, AIS A-D). Changes were assessed with paired t-tests, McNemar test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, associations with multivariable regression and group comparisons with Mann-Whitney U test and Chi Square test. RESULTS: On group level participation in LTPA did not change, but the variability was substantial on individual level. There were no significant associations between changes in LTPA and the investigated variables. Among sedentary participants, higher level and severity of injury were overrepresented and the activity limitations were greater. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate stability in LTPA over time, but with a large individual variation. In many participants LTPA was insufficient to reach positive health effects. Promoting participation in LTPA is therefore an important part of the long-term management of middle-aged and older adults aging with long-term SCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".