The relationship between changes in sitting time and mortality in post-menopausal US women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting is linked to various deleterious health outcomes. The alterability of the sitting time (ST)-health relationship is not fully established however and warrants study within populations susceptible to high ST. METHODS: We assessed the mortality rates of post-menopausal women from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) observational study, a 15-year prospective study of post-menopausal women aged 50-79 years, according to their change in ST between baseline and year six. A total of 77 801 participants had information at both times on which to be cross-classified into the following: (i) high ST at baseline and follow-up; (ii) low ST at baseline and follow-up; (iii) increased ST and (iv) decreased ST. Cox regression was used to assess the relationship between all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality with change in ST. RESULTS: At the end of follow-up, there were 1855 deaths. Compared with high ST maintainers, low ST maintainers had a 51 and 48% lower risk of all-cause and cancer mortality, respectively. Reducing sitting also resulted in a protective rate of 29% for all-cause and 27% for cancer mortality. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight not only the benefit of maintaining minimal ST, but also the utility of decreasing ST in older women, if current levels are high.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".