Leisure-Time Physical Activity in Canadians Living With Crohn Disease and Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".