National estimates of self-reported sitting time in adults with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the prevalence and distribution of sedentary behavior (SB) in multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe sitting time as a metric of SB in a large national sample of people with MS. METHODS: A total of 8004 individuals from the North American Research Committee on MS (NARCOMS) Registry completed the sitting time question from the International Physical Activity Questionnaire in spring 2015. We present descriptive data on sitting time for the total sample and across sociodemographic, clinical, and behavioral characteristics. RESULTS: The final sample included 6483 individuals. Of these, 36.7% were classified with mild disability, 24.7% with moderate disability, and 38.6% with severe disability. Median sitting time for the total sample was 480 min/day (P25 = 310 min/day, P75 = 720 min/day). Sitting time was highest for individuals with MS who were male (540 min/day), not married (540 min/day), had a disease duration >30 years (540 min/day), were underweight (540.5 min/day), had an annual income of < $15,000 (585 min/day), presented with a progressive form of MS (600 min/day), were classified as insufficiently active (600 min/day), or presented with severe disability (661 min/day). CONCLUSION: Sitting time is twice as high in individuals with MS compared to the general population (240 min/day).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".