Stair use for cardiovascular disease prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction There is no doubt that higher physical activity and fitness levels are inversely associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) [1]. Yet, most Europeans and Americans do not meet current minimum physical activity recommendations [2] and the prevalence of CVD risk factors related to a sedentary lifestyle, such as obesity and diabetes, is increasing at an alarming rate [3,4]. To counter those trends, there is an urgent need to develop population strategies aiming to increase physical activity. Stair use is inexpensive and can be easily integrated into everyday life by most of the population. Stair climbing represents vigorous-intensity physical activity with oxygen uptake reaching approximately 80% of maximal values in young healthy adults, corresponding up to nearly 10 metabolic equivalents (METs) of energy expenditure [5], sufficient to improve cardiorespiratory fitness [6]. In the Harvard College alumni cohort study, stair climbing was associated with a significant decrease in mortality risk of Z 21% for people climbing Z 20 floors compared with those climbing less than 20 floors per week [1]. The purpose of this study is to review studies that evaluated the effects of stair use on fitness and CVD risk factors, present results of the recent Geneva Stair study, and finally formulate general conclusions on the promotion of stair use for CVD prevention at a population level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".