MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2093587119 · doi:10.1139/h08-150

Age and physical activity status effects on appetite and mood state in older humans

2009· article· en· W2093587119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John W. Apolzan, Michael G. Flynn, Brian K. McFarlin, W. W. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthPurdue University
KeywordsAppetiteMoodArousalPhysical activityMedicineNadirPsychologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the influences of age and chronic physical activity status on appetite and mood state. Groups of younger inactive, younger active, older inactive, and older active men and women completed questionnaires each waking hour, rating appetite and mood state for 1 day. Maximal oxygen consumption was 20% lower in older than in younger (p < 0.001) subjects, and 32% lower in inactive than in active (p < 0.001) subjects. Mean hunger (older, 4 +/- 1; younger, 5 +/- 1 arbitrary units (AU); p < 0.01) and desire to eat (older, 3 +/- 1; younger, 4 +/- 1 AU; p < 0.01) were lower in older than in younger subjects. Nadir arousal was higher for the active subjects (active, 3 +/- 1; inactive, 2 +/- 1 AU; p < 0.05). Nadir arousal, nadir pleasantness, and mean pleasantness were higher for the older subjects (p < 0.05). Physical activity status does not influence appetite or the age-associated declines in hunger or desire to eat. The increased nadir arousal of the physically active and older groups is consistent with these subjects experiencing less extreme sleepiness.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism→Same topicEating Disorders and Behaviors→French-language works237,207→