Recommendations of Lifestyle Modification According to a Survey of First-Year University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We analyzed what kind of lifestyle modification first-year university students need based on the results of a health-consciousness survey conducted in first-year students immediately after they entered a university. METHODS: This population-based cross-sectional study used a "questionnaire survey on lifestyle and health for promoting health" conducted in Japan in 2015. From among an initial pool of 3,912 students, we excluded 314 due to insufficient data. The remaining 3,598 students (2,206 males and 1,392 females) were divided into four groups according to body mass index (BMI) based on Japan Society for the Study of Obesity "Guidelines for the management of obesity disease 2016": low (18.5 > BMI), less than standard (22.0 > BMI ≥ 18.5), standard or higher (25.0 > BMI ≥ 22.0) and obesity (BMI ≥ 25.0). RESULTS: Females had an ideal body image that was at a lower body weight regardless of their BMI. Males in the low BMI and obesity groups tended to be less aware of health issues. For each level of BMI, and in both males and females, the most frequent report of stress was "sometimes feel". The most frequent method for relieving stress was spending time with friends. Among males, those in the obesity group spent more time with "personal computers, televisions and games, etc." in a sitting position. When students were asked to rank which of their lifestyle habits needed the most improvement, "lack of exercise" was the highest, followed by "irregular schedule" and "dietary habits". In daily living behavior, a significant difference was observed for "exercise" among males, but not females. CONCLUSION: The attitudes of both males and females regarding the importance of physical activity and the necessity of efforts to improve health are presented. Health education for university students based on the attitudes may be useful for the prevention of lifestyle-related diseases for themselves in the future and before they become parents.
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 | 0.051 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".