MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1937054654 · doi:10.1136/eb-2012-101195

Muscle strength during adolescence is associated with longevity

2013· letter· en· W1937054654 on OpenAlexaff
Antony D. Karelis

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMuscle strengthProspective cohort studyLongevityInternal medicineCause of deathDiseaseCohort studyCohortPediatricsGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Ortega FB, Silventoinen K, Tynelius P, et al. Muscular strength in male adolescents and premature death: cohort study of one million participants. BMJ 2012;345:e7279[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] The importance of muscle strength as a risk factor for mortality has recently been given greater attention by researchers. Accordingly, there is evidence to suggest that low levels of muscle strength may be associated with an increased risk of mortality in middle-aged and elderly individuals.1 However, no prospective large-scale study appears to be available regarding the relationship between muscle strength and the risk of early mortality in adolescents, since leading causes of death in the elderly (cardiovascular disease) and young adults (suicide) are different. Therefore, in this study, Ortega and colleagues examined the association between different levels of muscle strength and the risk of premature death owing to cardiovascular disease, cancer and suicide in male adolescents. Over one million Swedish … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.e7279%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F23169869%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=345/nov20_3/e7279&atom=%2Febmed%2F18%2F5%2Fe48.atom

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Observational
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Empirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207