Work‐related repetitive strain injury and leisure‐time physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between leisure-time physical activity and work-related repetitive strain injury (RSI), adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and work-related physical and stress factors. METHODS: The data source was the 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey, a national cross-sectional survey of 134,072 respondents. The analysis was limited to a sample of the survey population reporting full-time work during the past 12 months (n = 58,622). The outcome of interest was work-related RSI of the upper body. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between the outcome and leisure-time physical activity level, adjusted for sociodemographic, health, and occupational characteristics. The potential effect of leisure-time physical activity with a high upper-body load was investigated in a secondary analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of upper-body work-related RSI was 5.9% in the Canadian population in 2003. An active lifestyle during leisure time was associated with a lower prevalence of work-related upper-body RSI (odds ratio 0.84, 99% confidence interval 0.75-0.95), after adjustment for work physical demands and other covariates. Female sex, obesity, smoking, age, work-related stress, and work physical demands were associated with RSI. In the secondary analysis, we did not find that participating in leisure-time activities with a high upper-body load was a risk factor for RSI. CONCLUSION: Our study results indicate that being physically active during leisure time is associated with a decreased risk of upper-body occupational RSI, adding another potential health benefit to participation in leisure-time physical activity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".