Comparing health behaviours of internal medicine residents and medical students: An observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: During residency, many physicians find it difficult to maintain a healthy lifestyle; however, there is little objective data available. In this study, residents' health behaviours and cardiovascular risk status were compared with those of medical students. METHODS: Medical residents (n=55, postgraduate years 1 to 4) were compared with medical students (n=62, years 1-4). The main dependent variable was the average number of steps per day (assessed using a pedometer) at work and leisure over three days, during which subjects were not on call or post-call. In addition, all subjects completed a three day food log. Frequency of vigorous exercise was assessed by a single question. Body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, blood pressure, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, smoking habits and random blood glucose were measured, and Framingham Risk Score coronary artery disease 10 year probabilities (FRS) were calculated. RESULTS: Residents recorded 8344±3520 steps per day while students recorded 10703±3986 (p < 0.002). 35% of residents and 52% of students averaged more than 10,000 steps per day and senior residents took fewer steps than junior residents. Both groups frequently failed to achieve the recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables; on average, 3.5±2.0 servings for residents and 5.4±2.2 for students (p < 0.0001). BMI and FRS were higher among the residents in comparison with the students. CONCLUSION: Medical residents at our institution appear less active and consume fewer servings of fruits and vegetables than undergraduate medical students. These differences are associated with higher BMI, waist circumference and cardiovascular risk.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".