Repeatability of lifetime exercise reporting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine the reliability of lifetime exercise data obtained through a structured interview. Interviews were conducted in 1992-1993 and repeated in 1997 in 150 monozygotic male twins, aged 35-69 years, from the population-based Finnish Twin Cohort. Exercise mode, frequency, duration, intensity and period of participation were solicited for each regularly performed exercise from 12 years of age to the present. Questions related to the most common exercise mode reported in the initial interview were repeated in all subjects and the entire exercise interview was repeated in a subgroup of 38 subjects. The repeatability was highest for exercise years and mean hours/ week by mode for the most commonly performed exercise (Mean ICC=0.63-0.90), and for the sum of all lifetime exercises reported (Mean ICC = 0.69-0.73). The lowest repeatability was found for exercise intensity (Mean Kappa = 0.33-0.48). Similarly poor reliability was found for whether or not exercise was performed at a competitive level (Mean Kappa = 0.25-0.63). Overall, the structured interview of lifetime exercise was most repeatable for years of exercise and mean hours/week. Thus, these exposure variables should be considered in retrospective studies of exercise effects.
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 | 0.022 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".