Do People With Stroke Meet Aerobic and Muscle-Strengthening Activity Guidelines? Data From the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is unclear to what extent Canadians with stroke engage in moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and muscle-strengthening activities (MSA). The purpose of this study was to describe overall physical activity, aerobic MVPA, and MSA participation in Canadians with stroke; determine the functioning, disability, and health classes that best characterize this population; and examine the relationship between-class membership and physical activity participation. METHODS: Activity levels were quantified using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly in 2094 adults with stroke or transient ischemic attack (mean age 67.9 years, 9.5 years poststroke) from the CLSA. Means and percentages were used to characterize participation. Latent class analysis was used to create health and disability classes, and activity levels were compared between classes. RESULTS: Only 6.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8%-8.0%) met both MVPA and MSA guidelines. Most (88.2%, 95% CI, 85.0%-88.9%) engaged in MVPA <3 times/wk and 76.7% (95% CI, 73.7%-79.1%) never engaged in MSA. In latent class analyses, 2 classes for males and females were characterized by high-positive or low-negative levels of intrinsic capacity (eg, grip strength), functional mobility (eg, walking speed), and environment (eg, social support). Those in the low-negative classes had the lowest Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly scores and aerobic MVPA levels compared to the high-positive (healthiest) classes. MSA participation was not different between classes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Canadians with stroke are not engaging in sufficient physical activity. Clinicians should encourage regular participation in physical activity, especially among those with lower levels of intrinsic capacity, functional mobility, and environmental support. Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Supplementary Digital Content 3 available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A494).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".