MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161841982 · doi:10.4314/bafm.v46i2.61019

Health Status Of Leisure Walkers In Kuwait

2010· article· en· W2161841982 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bader Alkhalaf, N Al-khulaifi, I Al-Taher, Kawthar Alsaleh, J Abdul Reza

Bibliographic record

VenueAlexandria Journal of Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaConfoundingLogistic regressionEnvironmental healthQuarter (Canadian coin)DiseaseBronchitisDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: This study is designed to assess health status among pedestrians using different walking paths in several areas around Kuwait during March to June 2005. This cross-sectional research evaluates the prevalence of respiratory complaints and assesses the possible confounding effects that may be associated with distribution of disease. Methods: The adapted method is a self-report questionnaire to extract information about health status using a convenience sampling technique. The selected sample was pedestrians from both genders and all age groups using walking-paths. The data was analyzed by calculating proportions, and odd ratios were estimated using a logistic regression model. Results: The outcome revealed that nearly a quarter of the sample had some kind of respiratory diseases. Females were twice more likely to have food allergy than males. Genetic factors and gender are the main risk determinants that are associated with respiratory diseases, and specifically tobacco smoking is an extra confounder that is related to cases with asthma and bronchitis. Conclusion: This study indicate that a quarter of the sample who use walking paths in Kuwait have some kind of respiratory disease or allergy. Key words: Kuwait, Walking, physical activity, Respiratory diseases, Asthma.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlexandria Journal of MedicineSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207