MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077153250 · doi:10.1177/001789690406300205

Physical Activity and the Common Cold in Undergraduate University Students: Implications for Health Professionals

2004· article· en· W2077153250 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah P. Vossen, Heather McArel, Jeffery F. Vossen, Angela Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommon coldIncidence (geometry)Upper respiratory tract infectionPhysical activityMedicineDuration (music)Respiratory tract infectionsPopulationPhysical therapyDemographyGerontologyEnvironmental healthRespiratory systemInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The common cold, known as upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), is the world's most prevalent illness. The purpose of this study was to determine if physical activity is linked to the incidence and/or duration of the common cold. Method Undergraduate university students (n=200) were asked to complete two questionnaires. The Paffenbarger Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) estimated physical activity levels of participants in the previous year. The second questionnaire required participants to record the number and length of URTIs experienced over the previous year. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were used to analyse the relationships between physical activity (kcal/week) and the incidence and duration of URTIs. Results There was no relationship between the number of kilocalories expended per week through physical activity and the incidence ( r=-0.042, p=0.304) or duration (r=-0.014, p=0.434) of URTIs. Conclusion In the specific population of undergraduate university students, physical activity was not significantly related to the incidence or duration of the common cold.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Education JournalSame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207