Exercise intervention and health checks for middle-aged men with elevated cardiovascular risk: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of a health check by a nurse alone or combined with an exercise intervention in middle-aged men at increased cardiovascular risk. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. SETTING AND INTERVENTION: Primary care in Kirkkonummi municipality with 36 000 inhabitants. A health check by a nurse alone or combined with an exercise intervention to controls with no intervention was compared. SUBJECTS: A total of 168 men aged 35 to 45 years with at least two cardiovascular risk factors and physical activity (PA) frequency < 3 times a week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) as defined by International Diabetes Federation/American Heart Association and self-reported PA frequency. RESULTS: Overall, focusing on health increased physical activity frequency in middle-aged men. After one year, 19% had increased PA to ≥ 3 times a week (95% CI 12-26). All study groups increased PA to ≥ 3 times: 26% of men in the exercise intervention group, 15% of men in the health check group, and 16% of controls. The differences between the groups were not statistically significant. The intervention did not have any meaningful impact on MetS or other cardiovascular outcomes at one-year follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity increased in all study groups of middle-aged men in this health-promotion trial. The interventions had no effect on metabolic syndrome or other cardiovascular outcomes in the participants. The trial increased awareness and collaboration in physical activity promotion among municipal health care and exercise services.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".