MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lifetime sedentary living accelerates some aspects of secondary aging

2011· review· en· W2067103577 on OpenAlexaff
Frank W. Booth, Matthew J. Laye, Michael D. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society for Exercise Physiology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife expectancyPhysical activityAccelerated agingPhysical exerciseAgeingLongevityMedicineHealthy agingSenescenceSedentary lifestyleGerontologyEndocrinologyInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationChemistryEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lifetime physical inactivity interacts with secondary aging (i.e., aging caused by diseases and environmental factors) in three patterns of response. First, lifetime physical inactivity confers no apparent effects on a given set of physiological functions. Second, lifetime physical inactivity accelerates secondary aging (e.g., speeding the reduction in bone mineral density, maximal oxygen consumption, and skeletal muscle strength and power), but does not alter the primary aging of these systems. Third, a lifetime of physical activity to the age of ∼60-70 yr old totally prevents decrements in some age-associated risk factors for major chronic diseases, such as endothelial dysfunction and insulin resistance. The present review provides ample and compelling evidence that physical inactivity has a large impact in shortening average life expectancy. In summary, physical inactivity plays a major role in the secondary aging of many essential physiological functions, and this aging can be prevented through a lifetime of physical activity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations207
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207