Associations of Public Transportation Use With Cardiometabolic Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public transportation provides an opportunity to incorporate physical activity into journeys, but potential health impacts have not been systematically examined. We searched the literature for articles on public transportation and health published through December 2017 using Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, California), 5 medical databases, and 1 transportation-related database. We identified longitudinal studies which examined associations between public transportation and cardiometabolic health (including adiposity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease). We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies and performed meta-analyses where possible. Ten studies were identified, 7 investigating use of public transportation and 3 examining proximity to public transportation. Seven studies used individual-level data on changes in body mass index (BMI; weight (kg)/height (m)2), with objective outcomes being measured in 6 studies. Study follow-up ranged from 1 year to 10 years, and 3 studies adjusted for nontransportation physical activity. We found a consistent association between use of public transportation and lower BMI. Meta-analysis of data from 5 comparable studies found that switching from automobile use to public transportation was associated with lower BMI (-0.30 units, 95% confidence interval: -0.47, -0.14). Few studies have investigated associations between public transportation use and nonadiposity outcomes. These findings suggest that sustainable urban design which promotes public transportation use may produce modest reductions in population BMI.
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 | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".