Physical inactivity, excess adiposity and premature mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to review the evidence that physical inactivity and excess adiposity are related to an increased risk of all-cause mortality, and to better identify the independent contributions of each to all-cause mortality rates. A variance-based method of meta-analysis was used to summarize the relationships from available studies. The summary relative risk of all-cause mortality for physical activity from the 55 analyses (31 studies) that included an index of adiposity as a covariate was 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.821, whereas it was 0.82 [95% CI 0.80-0.84] for the 44 analyses (26 studies) that did not include an index of adiposity. Thus, physically active individuals have a lower risk of mortality by comparison to physically inactive peers, independent of level of adiposity. The summary relative risk of all-cause mortality for an elevated body mass index (BMI) from the 25 analyses (13 studies) that included physical activity as a covariate was 1.23 [95% CI 1.18-1.29], and it was 1.24 [95% CI 1.21-1.28] for the 81 analyses (36 studies) that did not include physical activity as a covariate. Studies that used a measure of adiposity other than the BMI show similar relationships with mortality, and stratified analyses indicate that both physical inactivity and adiposity are important determinants of mortality risk.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".