Are US adults with arthritis meeting public health recommendations for physical activity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of US adults with self-reported, doctor-diagnosed arthritis (without specifying the type of rheumatic disease) who are meeting the US Surgeon General's recommendations for physical activity. METHODS: Using population-based survey data from the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, we classified respondents according to their arthritis status and their level of physical activity (i.e., physically inactive, insufficiently active, or meeting recommendations). Prevalence data were weighted to take account of the complex sampling design, and were broken down by a variety of demographic characteristics such as race, education, and body weight. RESULTS: Nearly one-quarter (23%) of US adults reported having doctor-diagnosed arthritis. Among adults with arthritis, 23.8% were physically inactive, 38% reported insufficient levels of physical activity, and 38.3% reported meeting the recommendations for physical activity. The highest prevalence of inactivity in adults with arthritis was found among those subjects with fewer than 8 years of formal education (47.6%), those with 9-11 years of education (35.5%), those who were African American (35.4%), those whose age was > or =65 years (31.1%), and those who were Hispanic (30.4%). CONCLUSION: Despite the benefits of physical activity, more than 60% of adults with arthritis do not meet the physical activity recommendations. Efforts should be made to ensure that adults with arthritis are made aware of the benefits of physical activity, and that interventions are prescribed to assist these individuals in becoming more physically active.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".