Cross‐sectional Relationship of Pedometer‐Determined Ambulatory Activity to Indicators of Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the cross-sectional relationship between an objective measure of walking (pedometer-determined steps/day) and general indicators of health, a prior diagnosis of one or more components of the metabolic syndrome, and self-reported occupational activity in a generally sedentary working population. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Steps/day were compared with previous diagnosis of one or more components of the metabolic syndrome (by self-administered questionnaire) and with general health indicators including BMI, waist circumference, resting heart rate, and blood pressure in 182 subjects in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Study participants were volunteer employees recruited from five workplaces where, in general, the job types were moderately or highly sedentary. RESULTS: Steps/day were 7230 +/- SD 3447 for women (n = 153) and 8265 +/- 2849 (n = 21) for men. Pedometer-determined steps/day were associated inversely with BMI (r = -0.4005, p < 0.0001) in all participants and waist circumference in females only (r = -0.4303, p < 0.0001). There was a low correlation between steps/day and diastolic blood pressure in the whole sample (r = -0.2140, p = 0.0383). Participants who reported a prior diagnosis of one or more components of the metabolic syndrome (hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, heart disease, or type 2 diabetes) took fewer steps/day than healthy participants (p = 0.0254). Pedometer-determined steps/day were positively associated with self-reported occupational activity (p = 0.0002). DISCUSSION: Fewer steps/day are associated with increased BMI, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, and components of the metabolic syndrome. Low occupational activity is a contributing factor to low total ambulatory 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".