The influence of sitting time and physical activity on health outcomes in public housing residents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Examine differences between levels of physical activity and sitting time for residents of public housing developments located in high vs low income neighborhoods, and whether physical activity or sitting time had a greater influence on health outcomes. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis from the Healthful Options Using Streets and Transportation in Our Neighborhoods (HOUSTON) project. SETTING: Public housing developments located in Houston, TX. PARTICIPANTS: African American, adult males and females. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported PA and time spent sitting on weekdays were measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) short form. Participants completed measures of BMI (kg/m2), % body fat (%BF) and resting blood pressure to assess health outcomes. Neighborhood income was defined as the median household income at the census block group level, obtained from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey. RESULTS: All participants (N = 216) had an annual household income of < or = $19,350, and neighborhood income ranged from $9,226 to $57,618. Participants reported an average of 4342.2 +/- 4828.3 MET-min/wk of physical activity, and 4.5 +/- 3.2 hours of sitting per weekday. Time spent sitting was associated with BMI (beta = .50, t = 2.4, P = .018), %BF (beta = .87, t = 3.6, P =.000), and diastolic blood pressure (beta = .62, t = 2.1, P = .041). Physical activity was not significantly associated with any health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that public housing residents' health statuses are vulnerable to sedentary behaviors regardless of the affluence of the neighborhood surrounding the housing development.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".