Physical activity levels, ownership of goods promoting sedentary behaviour and risk of myocardial infarction: results of the INTERHEART study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the association between occupational and leisure-time physical activity (PA), ownership of goods promoting sedentary behaviour, and the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in different socio-economic populations of the world. Studies in developed countries have found low PA as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease; however, the protective effect of occupational PA is less certain. Moreover, ownership of goods promoting sedentary behaviour may be associated with an increased risk. METHODS: In INTERHEART, a case-control study of 10 043 cases of first MI and 14 217 controls who did not report previous angina or physical disability completed a questionnaire on work and leisure-time PA. RESULTS: Subjects whose occupation involved either light [multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.78, confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.86] or moderate (OR 0.89, CI 0.80-0.99) PA were at a lower risk of MI, whereas those who did heavy physical labour were not (OR 1.02, CI 0.88-1.19), compared with sedentary subjects. Mild exercise (OR 0.87, CI 0.81-0.93) as well as moderate or strenuous exercise (OR 0.76, CI 0.69-0.82) was protective. The effect of PA was observed across countries with low, middle, and high income. Subjects who owned both a car and a television (TV) (multivariable-adjusted OR 1.27, CI 1.05-1.54) were at higher risk of MI compared with those who owned neither. CONCLUSION: Leisure-time PA and mild-to-moderate occupational PA, but not heavy physical labour, were associated with a reduced risk, while ownership of a car and TV was associated with an increased risk of MI across all economic regions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".