Quantifying physical activity in community dwelling spinal cord injured individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: To characterize physical activity of people using manual wheelchairs with spinal cord injury in Manitoba. Methods: An observational study of manual wheelchairs users with spinal cord injury. Participants completed surveys related to self-efficacy for exercise, physical activity participation, and shoulder pain. Accelerometers were worn for 7 days on the wrist and trunk (GT3X, 100 Hz, 5 s epochs) and completed an activity log concurrently. Individual specific thresholds were determined for moderate intensity during a pace graded wheeling trial. Physical activity and sedentary time were characterized using various derived variables. Results: Twenty five participants (12 tetra:13 para, 21M:4F) demonstrated excellent accelerometer adherence achieving an average of 6.2 days worn for over 13 hours per day. A total of 74.6 min (all activity) and 115 min (contiguous bouts of activity) were achieved over time worn (6.2 days), corresponding to 11.8 and 18.5 min/day respectively. The participants substantially exceeded the published SCI guidelines (40 min/week, P<0.01) but were under the able bodied threshold of 150 min/week (P<0.01). No relationships were observed between surveys and objectively measured PA. Characterization of PA bouts revealed few participants (n=7) exhibiting single bout durations greater than 10 minutes, with an average contiguous bout duration of 30 s. A new functional classification scheme revealed positive correlations to PA variables and wheeling performance. Sedentary times ranged from 6.25 to 8.4 hours per day depending upon accelerometer placement. Conclusion: Arm based accelerometry can be used to determine PA and sedentary characteristics of manual wheelchair users with individual specific moderate intensity thresholds. Participants exceeded the SCI specific activity guidelines in terms of time per week, and failed to reach bout durations of 20 min. This study supports the use of able-bodied PA guidelines as a target. A new functional classification scheme was derived based upon wheeling dependent muscle innervation that had enhanced prediction of PA relative to standard anatomical classification
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".