MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404829055 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084610

Mapping context of sedentary behaviour in older adults who are prefrail and frail: an analysis of secondary outcomes from a longitudinal study (MAPS-B)

2024· article· en· W4404829055 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Isabel B. Rodrigues, Mayank Kalra, Rong Zheng, Alexander Rabinovich, George Ioannidis, Dylan Kobsar, Steven R. Bray, Jonathan D. Adachi, Qiyin Fang, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster UniversityUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
FundersAGE-WELLCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOsteoporosis CanadaHamilton Health Sciences FoundationMcMaster UniversityInstitute of AgingGovernment of CanadaMcMaster Institute for Research on Aging, McMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Longitudinal studyDemographySedentary behaviorGerontologySedentary lifestyleProspective cohort studyCohortCohort studyPhysical activityNames of the days of the weekPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To map the context of sedentary behaviour in older adults who are prefrail and frail during the winter and spring over 3 days (2 weekdays and 1 weekend) and to determine if certain types of sedentary behaviours are associated with health outcomes. DESIGN: Mixed methods, prospective longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: Community-dwelling older adults living in southern Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 21 older adults (72±7.3 years, 13 females, 13 frail) and experienced two dropouts. RESULTS: Participants accumulated a total of 18.4±2.6 hours/day of sedentary time in winter and 17.7±3.1 hours/day in spring. When considering daily indoor sedentary time (excluding sleep), participants accumulated 7.6±4.0 hours/day in winter and 6.3±2.7 hours/day in spring. In the spring, 68% of participants accumulated <8 hours/day of ≥15 min bouts of indoor sedentary time compared with 63% in the winter. Although there were no differences in sedentary time between seasons, we found a significant decrease in step count in winter (1190 fewer steps, 95% CI -2228 to -153 steps). There were no differences in sedentary time or step count between the weekday and weekend or between individuals who were prefrail and frail. There were no seasonal variations in participants' sedentary activities; the most common activities were watching television (TV), eating, napping, browsing the internet and socialising. We also found there may be gender differences in time and activities. Individuals who identified as female were more sedentary than individuals who were male. Almost all indoor behaviours occurred in the living/family room. Sedentary time was evenly spread throughout the day; however, prolonged sedentary behaviours ≥60 min mainly occurred in the evening regardless of the season. Step count in both winter and spring was positively associated with the Nottingham Activity of Daily Living assessment. There was an inverse association between sedentary behaviours ≥60 min (not including sleeping) and the 5×sit-to-stand and grip strength. CONCLUSION: The current definition of sedentary behaviour requires modification to capture total sedentary time, continuous bouts >60 min, the types of behaviours, time of day and season. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05661058.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→