Lifestyle Habits and Physical Capacity in Patients with Moderate or Severe Metabolic Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metabolic is a heterogeneous concept that includes five elements, each of which has individual thresholds that might be different when considered as a criterion in the metabolic syndrome. Therefore, some individuals might present different levels of metabolic syndrome. This study aims to identify two different severities of patients with metabolic syndrome-moderate versus severe-and the respective association of these severities with lifestyle habits and physical capacity. METHODS: The sample included 2,281 adults aged between 19 and 85 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) study. Subjects were subcategorized into three groups: No metabolic syndrome, moderate metabolic syndrome, or severe metabolic syndrome. Physical activity and dietary habits were assessed by questionnaires. Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) was measured in adults aged <50 years, whereas physical capacity was measured in adults ≥50 years of age. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of subjects had metabolic syndrome. From those, 15.3% had severe metabolic syndrome. No difference was observed among groups for energy intake. Subjects aged <50 years having severe metabolic syndrome had a lower CRF compared with moderate metabolic syndrome, whereas subjects ≥50 years reported less vigorous exercise (P≤0.05). Finally, subjects aged ≥50 years old having severe metabolic syndrome reported more physical incapacity compared to the other groups. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that metabolic syndrome is a heterogeneous condition that may be subclassified. Severe metabolic syndrome is associated with lower physical capacity and CRF compared to moderate metabolic syndrome. Studies are needed to determine if metabolic syndrome categorization can be useful for clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".