Accelerometer and Survey Data on Patterns of Physical Inactivity in New York City and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Inactive lifestyles contribute to health problems and premature death and are influenced by the physical environment. The primary objective of this study was to quantify patterns of physical inactivity in New York City and the United States by combining data from surveys and accelerometers. METHODS: We used Poisson regression models and self-reported survey data on physical activity and other demographic characteristics to predict accelerometer-measured inactivity in New York City and the United States among adults aged ≥18. National data came from the 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. New York City data came from the 2010-2011 New York City Physical Activity and Transit survey. RESULTS: Self-reported survey data indicated no significant differences in inactivity between New York City and the United States, but accelerometer data showed that 53.1% of persons nationally, compared with 23.4% in New York City, were inactive ( P < .001). New Yorkers reported a median of 139 weekly minutes of transportation activity, compared with 0 minutes nationally. Nationally, 50.0% of self-reported activity minutes came from recreation activity, compared with 17.5% in New York City. Regression models indicated differences in the association between self-reported minutes of transportation and recreation and accelerometer-measured inactivity in the 2 settings. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of physical inactivity was higher nationally than in New York City. The largest difference was in walking behavior indicated by self-reported transportation activity. The study demonstrated the feasibility of combining accelerometer and survey measurement and that walkable environments promote an active lifestyle.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".