A Scoping Review of Acute Sedentary Behaviour Studies of People with Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with a spinal cord injury (SCI) report less physical activity than other populations and may engage in more sedentary behaviour (SB), especially sitting time. SB negatively impacts physiological and psychosocial outcomes in the general population, yet minimal research has explored the effects in people with SCI. The goal of this scoping review was to catalogue and describe the effects of acute SB among people with SCI. We searched four databases before February 2024 for studies in which people with any SCI sat, laid, or reclined for more than one hour in a day, and any physiological, psychological, or behavioural (i.e., SB time) outcome was measured. In total, 2021 abstracts were screened, and eight studies were included (n = 172 participants). The studies were characterized by varied definitions, manipulations, and measures of SB. Most measured outcomes were physiological (e.g., metabolic, blood pressure), followed by behavioural (e.g., SB time) and psychological (e.g., well-being, affect). When SB was interrupted, only postprandial glucose and affect improved. Based on two studies, participants engaged in 1.6 to 12.2 h of SB per day. Average uninterrupted wheelchair sitting bouts lasted 2.3 h. Based on the very limited body of research, it is impossible to draw any conclusions regarding the nature, extent, or impact of SB in people with SCI. There is much work to carry out to define SB, test its effects, and determine if and how people with SCI should reduce and interrupt SB.
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 | 0.017 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".