EXCESSIVE SEDENTARY TIME DURING INPATIENT STROKE REHABILITATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Previous research suggests that patients receiving inpatient stroke rehabilitation are sedentary although there is little data to confirm this supposition within the Canadian healthcare system. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to observe two weeks of inpatient rehabilitation in a tertiary stroke center to determine patientsu2019 activity levels and sedentary time.Methods: Heart rate (HR) and accelerometer data were measured using an Actiheart monitor for seven consecutive days, 24 hr/day, on the second week and the last week of admission. Participants or their proxies completed a daily logbook. Metabolic equivalent (MET) values were calculated and time with MET<1.5 was considered sedentary. The relationship between patient factors (disability, mood, and social support) and activity levels and sedentary time were analysed. Results: Participants (n=19; 12 males) spent 10 hours sleeping and 4 hours resting each day, with 86.9% of their waking hours sedentary. They received on average 8.5 task-specific therapy sessions; substantially lower than the 15 hours/week recommended in best practice guidelines. During therapy, 61.6% of physical therapy and 76.8% of occupational therapy was spent sedentary. Participants increased their HR about 15 beats from baseline during physical therapy and 8 beats during occupational therapy. There was no relationship between sedentary time or activity levels and patient factors.Discussion: Despite calls for highly-intensive stroke rehabilitation, there was excessive sedentary time and therapy sessions were less frequent and of lower intensity than recommended levels. Conclusions: In this sample of people attending inpatient stroke rehabilitation, institutional structure of rehabilitation rather than patient-related factors contributed to sedentary time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".