Familial risk ratios for high and low physical fitness levels in the Canadian population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To estimate the familial risk of being physically fit or unfit in Canada. METHODS: The sample consisted of 11,680 participants from 4144 nuclear families of the 1981 Canada Fitness Survey. Indicators of physical fitness included estimated physical working capacity at a heart rate of 150 beats x min(-1) derived from a step test (PWC150), hand grip strength, sit-ups, and trunk flexibility. Probands were defined as reference individuals who were physically fit (95th, 85th, and 75th percentiles) or physically unfit (25th, 15th, and 5th percentiles) for each fitness indicator, respectively. RESULTS: Standardized risk ratios, adjusted for age and sex (SRR), for spouses and first-degree relatives of probands exceeding the 95th percentile are 1.63 and 1.81 for PWC150, 2.38 and 3.16 for grip strength, 2.63 and 3.98 for sit-ups, and 2.59 and 3.56 for trunk flexibility, respectively, whereas the SRR for spouses and first-degree relatives of probands below the 5th percentile are 1.54 and 1.34 for PWC150, 1.83 and 1.85 for grip strength, 1.13 and 1.53 for sit-ups, and 1.42 and 1.84 for trunk flexibility, respectively. The familial risks tend to be greatest at the extremes (95th and 5th percentiles) and the risks for first-degree relatives of physically fit probands are generally greater than those for spouses for grip strength, sit-ups and trunk flexibility, whereas those for PWC150 show no clear pattern. CONCLUSION: There is significant familial risk for being physically fit or unfit in the Canadian population. The pattern of SRR suggests that the familial risk for indicators of strength and flexibility may be due, in part, to genetic factors, whereas the shared family environment is largely contributing to the familial risk for PWC150.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".