MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2408500308

The independent roles of cardiorespiratory fitness and sedentary time on chronic conditions and Body Mass Index in older adults.

2015· article· en· W2408500308 on OpenAlexaff
Liza Stathokostas, Subha Dogra, D. H. Paterson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicinePhysical fitnessBody mass indexSedentary lifestyleTreadmillPhysical therapyGerontologyPhysical activityLeisure timeDemographyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The aim of this paper was to examine the independent influence of cardiorespiratory fitness and sedentary behavior on chronic disease incidence and body composition in older adults. METHODS: A sample of 292 community dwelling men and women (mean 69.3±8.1 years) underwent maximal treadmill testing and completed questionnaires relating to their leisure-time physical activity, sedentary time, and health. RESULTS: The average V O2 of the sample was approximately 21 ml.kg(-1).min(-1) with the average sedentary time being over 3 hours per day. Cardiorespiratory fitness was found to be a stronger predictor of number of chronic conditions and BMI than total physical activity and sedentary. Those with a higher cardiorespiratory fitness had fewer chronic conditions and a lower BMI. No such associations were seen for either total physical activity levels or sedentary time. CONCLUSION: Cardiorespiratory fitness is a stronger predictor of health among older adults and further highlights the importance of promoting public health guidelines for cardiorespiratory fitness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→