Predictors of Achieving Recommended Daily Physical Activity Among Anesthesiologists at a Large Tertiary Care Academic Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of the current study was to determine if the daily work patterns of anesthesiologists meet the recommended daily levels of activity. METHODS: Attending and resident anesthesiologists at a tertiary academic center were invited to participate. The subjects wore a pedometer during five regular clinical days at work and recorded the number of steps walked. The participants also completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) during one regular week. The results were analyzed using analysis of variance, Chi-square test and multivariate linear regression using STATA 12.1. RESULTS: During work, attending, compared with senior and junior resident, anesthesiologists had the most steps (5,953 ± 1,213, 5,153 ± 905, and 5,710 ± 1,513 steps, respectively, P = 0.2). Outside work, senior residents had the highest level of activity (3,592 ± 1,626 metabolic equivalent of task (MET)-minutes/week) compared to junior residents (1,788 ± 1,089 MET-minutes/week) and attending (2,104 ± 1,594 MET-minutes/week, P = 0.005); the percentage of recommended daily level of activity represented by this outside activity was senior residents (78.5%), junior residents (27%) and attending (21%) anesthesiologists (P = 0.002). When activity at and outside work was combined, most anesthesiologists met the recommended 10,000 steps daily, P < 0.009. CONCLUSIONS: The daily physical activity of faculty and trainee anesthesiologists at work in a busy tertiary care is low active. However, when additional physical activity is pursued outside of work, most anesthesiologists met recommended daily levels of activity. These results highlight the inadequacy of daily activity at work, and the need to pursue additional physical activity outside of work; such awareness can assist in promoting a healthy lifestyle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".