Comparison of self-reported and objectively measured levels of sitting and physical activity and associations with markers of health in cardiac rehabilitation patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) guidelines recommend patients achieve at least 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) 5 or more days per week.1 CR guidelines have also begun to advise patients to reduce their sedentary time (ST)2 in recognition of its association with poor cardiometabolic health.3 Only recently has research begun to assess ST in patients with cardiovascular disease.3–6 CR programmes and research frequently use self-report measures to evaluate changes in movement behaviour. An accurate assessment of MVPA and ST is needed to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of programmes to improve these behaviours and quantify their association with health indicators. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare sitting time and MVPA measured by self-report questionnaires to that captured by a validated7 activity monitor among CR patients. We used data from a pilot randomised controlled trial designed to measure and reduce ST in CR patients.6 Patients completed measures at baseline and 8 weeks (upon completion of CR). The study received ethical approval from the Ottawa Health Sciences Network Research Ethics Board (protocol no. 20160336-01H).
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".