Does Physical Activity Mediate the Association Between Perceived Neighborhood Aesthetics and Overweight/Obesity Among South African Adults Living in Selected Urban and Rural Communities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the mediation effects of physical activity (PA) on the relationship between the perceived neighborhood aesthetic environment and overweight/obesity in free-living South Africans. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 671 adults aged ≥ 35 years was analyzed. PA was assessed using the validated International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Perceived neighborhood aesthetics was assessed using the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale Questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 671 participants, 76.0% were women, 34.1% aged 45-54 years, and 69.2% were overweight or obese. In adjusted logistic regression models, overweight/obesity was significantly associated with neighborhood aesthetics [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.50-0.93] and PA (OR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90). In expanded multivariable models, overweight/obesity was associated with age 45-55 years (OR = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.05-2.40), female gender (OR = 6.24; 95% CI, 3.95-9.86), tertiary education (OR = 4.05; 95% CI, 1.19-13.86), and urban residence (OR = 2.46; 95% CI, 1.66-3.65). CONCLUSION: Aesthetics was positively associated with PA; both aesthetics and PA were negatively associated with overweight and obesity. There was no evidence to support a significant mediating effect of PA on the relationship between aesthetics and overweight/obesity. Future studies should consider objective assessment of aesthetics and PA. In addition, future studies should consider using longitudinal design to evaluate food-related environments, which are related to overweight or obesity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".