Prolonged sedentary time and physical fitness among Canadian men and women aged 60 to 69.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence for associations between prolonged sedentary time and breaks in sedentary time and fitness is limited in older adults. This study examines associations between objectively measured and self-reported total sedentary time and breaks in sedentary time with cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal fitness among Canadian men and women aged 60 to 69. DATA AND METHODS: Data from cycles 1 and 2 of the Canadian Health Measures Survey were used for analysis. This is a nationally representative survey with an overall response rate of 53.5%. Men (n = 564) and women (n = 593) aged 60 to 69 were selected for analysis. Sedentary time, breaks in sedentary time, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity were objectively measured with accelerometers. Leisure sedentary time was self-reported. Cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed with the modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test. Musculoskeletal fitness was based on grip strength and flexibility. Linear regression models were adjusted for age, sex, education, body mass index, smoking status and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. RESULTS: The number of breaks in measured sedentary time (β:0.47, p = 0.02 ) and the percentage of measured sedentary time spent in bouts lasting at least 20 minutes (β:-0.53, p = 0.01 ) were associated with cardiorespiratory fitness. For men, grip strength was negatively associated with measured total sedentary time (β:-0.03, p = 0.03 ) and sit-and-reach was positively associated with breaks in measured sedentary time (β:0.15, p = 0.02 ). Self-reported sedentary time was not associated with any of the fitness outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Among Canadians aged 60 to 69, fitness may be influenced not only by total sedentary time, but also by patterns of sedentary time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".