Abstract P425: Associations between Physical Activity, Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Abdominal Obesity and Cardiometabolic Risk in Obese Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The independent associations between abdominal obesity, cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), physical activity (PA) and cardiometabolic risk factors in obese women is unclear. We studied 165 sedentary, abdominally obese women (waist circumference 106.4 ± 10.2 cm, age 51.0 ± 7.8y). Objective measures of PA volume and intensity were obtained by accelerometry and CRF by a maximal treadmill test. Plasma glucose and serum insulin were obtained during a 2-hour glucose tolerance test. The homeostasis model of assessment (HOMA-IR) was used to estimate insulin resistance. Fasting levels for triglycerides, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoproteins were also obtained. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure was measured using the BP True method. With few exceptions PA variables alone were not associated with any cardiometabolic risk factors. WC was associated with all cardiometabolic risk factors except DBP, 1 and 2-hour glucose (p≤0.05). CRF alone was associated with SBP, fasting insulin, and HOMA-IR (p≤0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed associations between WC and HOMA-IR (r2=0.24, p<0.001), fasting insulin (r2=0.25, p<0.001), fasting glucose (r2=0.03, p<0.05), TG (r2=0.05, p<0.05), and HDL (r2=0.06, p<0.05) following adjustment for PA, and CRF. CRF, PA intensity and PA volume were not associated with cardiometabolic risk factors following control for each other and WC. In this study of sedentary, abdominally obese women objective measures of PA intensity and volume were not associated with cardiometabolic risk factors independent of WC and CRF. WC was associated with most of the cardiometabolic risk factors independent of PA and CRF; however, the associations with measures of insulin metabolism were modest whereas the associations with lipid variables and blood pressure were weak.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".