Adolescent Trajectories of Aerobic Fitness and Adiposity as Markers of Cardiometabolic Risk in Adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. The aim of this study was to investigate whether adolescent growth trajectories of aerobic fitness and adiposity were associated with mid-adulthood cardiometabolic risk (CMR).Methods. Participants were drawn from the Saskatchewan Growth and Development Study (1963–1973). Adolescent growth trajectories for maximal aerobic capacity (absolute VO2(AbsVO2)), skinfolds (SF), representing total body (Sum6SF) and central adiposity (TrunkSF), and body mass index (BMI) were determined from 7 to 17 years of age. In mid-adulthood (40 to 50 years of age), 61 individuals (23 females) returned for follow-ups. A CMR score was calculated to group participants as displaying either high or a low CMR. Multilevel hierarchical models were constructed, comparing the adolescent growth trajectories of AbsVO2,Sum6SF, TrunkSF, and BMI between CMR groupings.Results. There were no significant differences in the adolescent development of AbsVO2,Sum6SF, TrunkSF, and BMI between adult CMR groupings ( p>0.05 ). Individuals with high CMR accrued 62% greater adjusted total body fat percentage from adolescence to adulthood ( p=0.03 ).Conclusions. Growth trajectories of adolescent aerobic fitness and adiposity do not appear to be associated with mid-adulthood CMR. Individuals should be encouraged to participate in behaviours that promote healthy aerobic fitness and adiposity levels throughout life to reduce lifelong CMR.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".