MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020511870 · doi:10.1097/sga.0b013e3182248732

Leisure-Time Physical Activity in Canadians Living With Crohn Disease and Ulcerative Colitis

2011· article· en· W2020511870 on OpenAlexaffabout
Diane E. Mack, Philip M. Wilson, Jennica C. Gilmore, Katie E. Gunnell

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUlcerative colitisCrohn's diseaseMedicineLeisure timeDiseaseCrohn diseasePhysical activityGastroenterologyInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to provide population-based estimates of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) in Canadians diagnosed with Crohn disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Data were derived from the Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 3.1 (2005). Those diagnosed with CD (n = 474; 61.60% female) or UC (n = 637; 65.10% female) were compared with those not reporting CD/UC (n = 113,685; 53.60% female). The most prevalent forms of LTPA reported were walking and gardening/yard work. Individuals with CD were more likely to be classified as "inactive" (OR = 1.34; 95% CI [1.12, 1.61]) and less likely to be "active" (OR = 0.69; 95% CI [0.55, 0.87]) than those not reporting CD/UC. These trends were mirrored for those living with UC, although statistical significance was not attained. Despite claims advocating the benefits of LTPA for ameliorating complications associated with CD/UC, prevalence estimates from a population-based sample of Canadians living with CD/UC suggest that the majority do not meet current public health guidelines. Results offer benchmarks for prevalence of LTPA in those diagnosed with CD/UC. Findings suggest that many living with this condition will not benefit from the protective role of LTPA on complications associated with CD/UC.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations37
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology NursingSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207