[Reproducibility and sensitivity of a questionnaire on physical activity in a Mexican population].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reproducibility and sensitivity of a physical activity questionnaire (PAQ) developed at Laval University, to detect differences in lean and obese individuals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at Mexico's National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition, between January and May 1999. The PAQ was translated into Spanish and adjusted to the Mexican setting. The test-retest method was used to measure reliability, allowing a four-week interval between tests (n = 30 overweight subjects). To assess the questionnaire's sensitivity a group of young cadets (n = 18) was compared to a group of young civilians (n = 32). Concordance was measured through the intraclass correlation coefficient; test-retest was analyzed using the paired or unpaired Student's t test, as necessary. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.86. The PAQ was able to show differences of more than 400 kcal/day (1674 kJ/day) and more than 4 kcal/kg/day (17 kJ/kg/day), among young people with high physical activity (t-test). CONCLUSIONS: The PAQ is a sensitive and reliable instrument that can be used in the Mexican population. The English version of this paper is available at: http://www.insp.mx/salud/index.html
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".