Physical activity levels, sport activities and risk of acute myocardial infarction: results of the INTERHEART study in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical Activity (PA) during leisure time has been inversely associated with Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) risk in Western populations. We aim to evaluate PA at work and leisure time in relation to Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) in Chinese. Methods: We conducted a hospital-based case-control study. Cases were first AMI (n=2909). Controls (n=2947) were matched to cases on age and sex. All the participants from 27 regions in China were enrolled between February 1999 and March 2003. Results: After adjustment for age and sex, the OR associated with heavy physical labour, compared with mainly sedentary was 1.44 (95% CI: 1.06 to 1.94), for walking, climbing, and lifting 1.00 (95% CI: 0.77 to 1.30) and for walking at one level 0.90 (95% CI: 0.75 to 1.07) (Global P value for multiple logistic regression, 0.0279, respectively). The ORs of leisure-time PA for strenuous exercise group compared with mainly sedentary group was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.61 to 0.90), and for mild and moderate exercise group 0.96 (95% CI: 0.85 to 1.08). People in the highest level (≥7 hours per week of leisure-time sport activity such as running, swimming) had an OR of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.82; P value=0.0001) compared with those in the lowest level (no leisure-time sport activity). Multivariate adjustment did not substantially alter the association. There was the interaction between leisure-time physical activity and related factors of AMI. People in the highest level of leisure-time physical activity consumed more cigarettes. Conclusions: Moderate work-related PA, such as walking, can reduce the risk of AMI and excessive heavy work-related PA increased the risk of AMI, compared mainly sedentary. Leisure-time physical activity was protective for AMI risk compared to sedentary lifestyles in a population in China.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".