[Lifestyle of Dutch people aged 55-64 years less healthy in 2002/'03 than in 1992/'93].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the lifestyle of men and women aged 55-64 years in The Netherlands in 2002/'03 and compare it with the lifestyle of people of the same age in 1992/'93. DESIGN: Descriptive. METHOD: Data were used from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. The study comprised two randomly selected samples from local municipal registers in 1992/'93 (n = 966) and 2002/'03 (n = 1002), stratified according to sex, age and expected 5-year survival. Participants were from 11 municipalities in the west, northeast and south of The Netherlands. Data were collected from interviews, measurements and a written questionnaire. The response was 62% in 1992/'93 and 57% in 2002/'03. RESULTS: In 1992/'93, 9.5% of the men and 20.5% of the women were obese. Ten years later these percentages were 18.4 and 27.5. The percentage of current smokers was stable over time and included one-third of men and one-quarter of women. More people used alcohol in 2002/'03; excessive alcohol use was found in 15.7% of the men (11.7% in 1992/'93) and 19.5% of the women (11.1% in 1992/'93). The energy expended through walking, bicycling, household activities and sports was one-fifth less in 2002/'03. CONCLUSION: The lifestyle of people aged 55-64 years in The Netherlands was less healthy in 2002/'03 than in 1992/'93. Because positive changes in lifestyle can reduce the risk of chronic diseases, functional limitations and early death, more attention to healthy living is necessary in this age group.
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 | 0.001 | 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".