Studio "Salute degli anziani del territorio" – (SAT), efficacia dell'attivita fisica adattata (APA – salute in movimento), nel miglioramento delle performance motorie e delle competenze cognitive in risposta alla cronicita
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nella fig.1, la flow chart con i dati dei soggetti reclutati.CRITERI PER L'ARRUOLAMENTO Valutazione clinica da parte del medico per verificare l'idoneità a svolgere l'attività fisica prevista e la somministrazione del Modified Baecke Questionaire for Older Adults (MBQOA) per valutare l'attività fisica svolta negli ultimi 12 mesi.INDICATORI DI RISULTATO Al tempo 0 e dopo 6 mesi: Walking Test (WT6min), Time Up and Go test (TUG), Timed Up and Go + Dual Task (al TUG Test, viene chiesta la ripetizione dei giorni della settimana in sequenza in ordine inverso).È stato inoltre valutato il dolore, mediante la Scala Analogica Visiva (VAS).Il test MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assestment), è stato utilizzato per valutare lo stato cognitivo.La mobilità articolare del cingolo scapolo omerale misurata in gradi mediante un goniometro fisiatrico, la riduzione della circonferenza addominale e l'aderenza al programma APA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.011 |
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".