Sedentary Behaviors and Functional Disability Among Chinese Older Adults (2008–2018): Evidence Including Mahjong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PurposeThis study examined how different types of sedentary behavior relate to changes in functional disability, measured by activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), among Chinese older adults.Major findingsUsing data from 17,939 participants in four waves (2008-2018) of the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey (CLHLS), sedentary behavior was categorized into four types: none, playing mahjong only, combining these with other sedentary activities, and other activities alone (e.g., reading and watching TV). Cox two-state regression models estimated the hazard of transitioning in ADL and IADL disability. Engaging in sedentary behaviors was generally associated with a lower risk of developing ADL and IADL impairments. Playing mahjong alone was significantly associated with reduced risk of developing ADL (HR) = 0.60) and IADL difficulties (HR = 0.82).ConclusionsCognitively and socially engaging sedentary activities, particularly mahjong, may protect against functional decline in later life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".