Effect of <i>FTO</i> Gene and Physical Activity Interaction on Trunk Fat Percentage Among the Newfoundland Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of FTO gene and physical activity interaction on trunk fat percentage. DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects are 3,004 individuals from Newfoundland and Labrador whose trunk fat percentage and physical activity were recorded, and who were genotyped for 11 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the FTO gene. Subjects were stratified by gender. Multiple tests and multiple regressions were used to analyze the effects of physical activity, variants of FTO, age, and their interactions on trunk fat percentage. Dietary information and other environmental factors were not considered. RESULTS: Higher levels of physical activity tend to reduce trunk fat percentage in all individuals. Furthermore, in males, rs9939609 and rs1421085 were significant (α = 0.05) in explaining central body fat, but no SNPs were significant in females. For highly active males, trunk fat percentage varied significantly between variants of rs9939609 and rs1421085, but there is no significant effect among individuals with low activity. The other SNPs examined were not significant in explaining trunk fat percentage. CONCLUSIONS: Homozygous male carriers of non-obesity risk alleles at rs9939609 and rs1421085 will have significant reduction in central body fat from physical activity in contrast to homozygous males of the obesity-risk alleles. The additive effect of these SNPs is found in males with high physical activity only.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".