MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7008227623

Associations between mobility capacity and walking performance in community-dwelling older people with outdoor walking limitations

2022· dissertation· en· W7008227623 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDecision Support System Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadenceLinear regressionModerationTest (biology)Preferred walking speedRegression analysisOlder peopleTimed Up and Go testVariance (accounting)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Walking is the most common physical activity reported by Canadian adults. Community-ambulation requires many skills such as muscle strength, balance, endurance along with other factors. Clinicians use capacity tests to measure physical abilities to better understand the relationship between what people can do (capacity) and what people really do in their daily lives (performance). Our objective was to determine individual and collective relationships between mobility capacity and walking performance to better understand how to use and interpret tests of capacity in clinical situations. Methods: This study was a secondary data analysis. Baseline data from 168 participants (≥63 years of age) of the GO-OUT study, conducted in 4 Canadian cities (Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, and Montreal), were analyzed. The multiple linear regression analyses included mobility capacity tests (6-minute Walk Test (6MWT), comfortable 10-metre Walk Test (10mWT), 30-second Sit-to-Stand (30sSTS) and Mini-BESTest); and walking performance measures collected with 7-day accelerometry (peak 30-minute cadence, time walked in bouts and steps/day). Frailty status data were used to test for a moderation effect. Results: Outcomes from multiple linear regression models with single capacity measures demonstrated that tests of capacity were positively related with walking performance measures, however they explained only a small amount of the variance in peak 30-minute cadence (24-28%), time walked in bouts (12-17%), and steps/day (18-22%). Analyses of the combined capacity measures using multiple linear regression demonstrated larger amounts of variance were explained in all walking performance measures (peak 30-minute cadence R2 =37%, with 6MWT and 30sSTS significant; time walked in bouts R2 =19%, with 10mWT significant; steps/day R2=25%, with 30sSTS significant; all p ≤ 0.05). Frailty did not moderate any relationships. Conclusion: The 6MWT and 30sSTS are significantly associated with peak 30-minute cadence, which is said to represent the best natural effort in daily life. These two tests assess different aspects of physical capacity and physiotherapists may use them to better understand walking performance of their clients to plan and evaluate treatment progress.

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)0.001
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 score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicDecision Support System ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207