Physical activity among Canadian adults with obstructive respiratory diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the amount and modes of physical activity in which adults with obstructive respiratory disease engage. Data from respondents with self-reported asthma (n = 4293), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n = 3118), both diseases (n = 1569), and neither obstructive respiratory disease (n = 64 175); these data are from the Canadian Community Health Survey (2011-2012). Logistic regressions were used to assess associations between modes of physical activity and type of respiratory disease. Linear regressions were used to investigate the association between daily energy expenditure and respiratory disease. Adults with COPD and both diseases had the lowest participation in all modes of physical activity. Those with both diseases were less likely to report walking (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.63-0.88), while those with COPD were less likely to report participation in endurance activities (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.68-0.92), compared with those with neither obstructive respiratory disease. Those with asthma had similar daily energy expenditure levels and physical activity preferences compared with those with neither obstructive respiratory disease. In conclusion, adults with COPD and both asthma and COPD were less likely to engage in common activities such as walking, while physical activity levels among adults with asthma did not differ from the general population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".