MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting energy expenditure from physical activity, heart rate and anthropometry in female Indian tea pluckers

2011· article· en· W1763133168 on OpenAlexaff
Eric M. Przybyszewski, Julie Hammons, Sudha Venkatramanan, Jere D. Haas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy expenditureAnthropometryHeart rateMedicineDemographyPhysical activityMetabolic equivalentBasal metabolic ratePopulationBody weightMathematicsAnimal sciencePhysical therapyInternal medicineBlood pressureEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to test a methodological procedure for estimating energy expenditure for a population of Indian female tea pluckers. Subjects (N=40; age=20–50 y) working on a tea estate in West Bengal, India participated in the study. Each subject wore an Actigraph accelerometer, Polar heart rate monitor and CosMed K4b2 metabolic analyzer during a 90‐minute period to assess minute‐by‐minute physical activity (PA), heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE), respectively. The testing period was meant to replicate a normal tea picker's work day which included 2 periods of rest, 3 periods of picking while carrying weight (0, 5, and 10kg) and 3 periods of walking while carrying weight (15, 20 and 25kg). An EE prediction equation was generated using a branched method that first distinguishes times at rest from non‐rest (picking and walking) using accelerometer counts. Resting EE was estimated from age and BMI, while minute‐by‐minute non‐resting EE, was estimated from HR, age and BMI. Predicted EE will be used to evaluate the efficiency of performing work (weight of tea plucked/kcal EE) relative to iron status in an independent sample of 248 tea pluckers. We conclude that energy expenditure can be accurately predicted with a single branched equation based on PA, HR, age and BMI for a specific population participating in a known set of activities. Supported by the Mathile Institute and Micronutrient Initiative.

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207