Driving status, travel modes and accelerometer-assessed physical activity in younger, middle-aged and older adults: a prospective study of 90 810 UK Biobank participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Associations between driving and physical-activity (PA) intensities are unclear, particularly among older adults. We estimated prospective associations of travel modes with total PA, sedentary time (ST), light-intensity PA (LPA), and moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA) among adults aged 39-70 years. METHODS: We studied 90 810 UK Biobank participants (56.1 ± 7.8 years). Driving status, specific travel modes (non-work travel; commuting to/from work) and covariates were assessed by questionnaire (2006-10). PA was assessed over 7 days by wrist-worn accelerometers (2013-15). We estimated associations using overall and age-stratified multivariable linear-regression models. RESULTS: Drivers accumulated 1.4% more total PA (95% confidence interval: 0.9, 1.9), 11.2 min/day less ST (-12.9, -9.5), 12.2 min/day more LPA (11.0, 13.3) and 0.9 min/day less MVPA (-1.6, -0.2) than non-drivers. Compared with car/motor-vehicle users, cyclists and walkers had the most optimal activity profiles followed by mixed-mode users (e.g. for non-work travel, cyclists: 10.7% more total PA, 9.0, 12.4; 20.5 min/day less ST, -26.0, -15.0; 14.5 min/day more MVPA, 12.0, 17.2; walkers: 4.2% more total PA, 3.5, 5.0; 7.5 min/day less ST -10.2, -4.9; 10.1 min/day more MVPA, 8.9, 11.3; mixed-mode users: 2.3% more total PA, 1.9, 2.7; 3.4 min/day less ST -4.8, -2.1; 4.9 min/day more MVPA, 4.3, 5.5). Some associations varied by age (p interaction < 0.05), but these differences appeared small. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing specific travel modes rather than driving status alone may better capture variations in activity. Walking, cycling and, to a lesser degree, mixed-mode use are associated with more optimal activity profiles in adults of all ages.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".