Associations between sitting time and health-related quality of life among older men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Statement of problem While physical activity is positively associated with more optimal health-related quality of life (HRQoL), less is known about the associations between sedentary behavior and HRQoL. The purpose of this study was to determine associations of total sitting time with HRQoL among older men. Methods Older-aged men 55 years of age and older ( N = 375) completed a mailed survey that assessed demographic and health information, weekday and weekend sitting time, and HRQoL (RAND-12). Results Participants averaged 9.3 h (SD = 7) of sitting time for weekday and 8.3 h (SD = 5.2) of sitting time for weekend. For weekday, all three adjusted HRQoL models (i.e., physical, mental, and global health) indicated no significant differences in HRQoL across weekday sitting time quartiles (Q) (all p 's > .36). For weekend, all three adjusted models indicated significant associations. Differences were observed for Q1 and Q4 (the lowest and highest quartiles, respectively) on physical ( M diff = 2.3, p = 0.05), mental ( M diff = 2.9, p M diff = 2.2, p p > 0.01). Conclusion Older men spend the majority of their waking hours engaged in sedentary behaviors. Weekend sitting time was associated with HRQoL when comparing the lowest and highest quartiles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".