Physiological correlates to physical activity in obese patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obesity and OSA are closely interconnected conditions both leading to reduced exercise tolerance and low physical activity. We investigated physiological correlates of spontaneous physical activity in obese OSA. Methods: 38 obese CPAP-treated OSA (age = 53 ± 3 years; BMI= 38 ± 3 kg/m²) consecutively included in a larger randomized multicenter study performed 5-day actigraphy as well as measurements of pulmonary function, body composition, quadriceps and respiratory muscle strength, and exercise tolerance (six-minute walking distance -6MWD- and maximal aerobic capacity on cycloergometer). Quality-of-life was assessed by the SF-36 questionnaire and sleepiness by the Epworth questionnaire. Results: The mean number of step per day was 7182 ± 2594 and the mean intensity of physical activity was 1.1 ± 0.1 METS, with a mean total energy expenditure of 3123 ± 499 kcal/day. The number of steps per day was correlated with FEV1, (r = 0.38, p = 0.02), Epworth score (r = -0.31, p = 0.06), VO2peak (r = 0.30, p = 0.06) and 6MWD (r = 0.38, p = 0.06). The number of METS tended to correlate with maximal workload (r = 0.32; p = 0.06) and VO2peak (r = 0.30, p = 0.08). IMC, fat-free-mass and perception of dyspnea and leg discomfort during exercise did not influence physical activity. Conclusion: Pulmonary function and sleepiness may significantly influence the number of step per day in obese OSA although the intensity of physical activity appears to be further impacted by exercise capacity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".