Prevalence of abdominal obesity and associated lifestyle factors in bus drivers in a city in Southern Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bus drivers are exposed to unique working conditions. The behavioral and health trends of these workers should be investigated. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of abdominal obesity and associated lifestyle factors in bus drivers in a city in Southern Brazil. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with 103 bus drivers with mean age of 41 years (±8.5) was conducted. Abdominal obesity was measured through waist circumference using anthropometric tape. To evaluate the different lifestyle domains, the Brazilian version of the Canadian Fantastic Lifestyle questionnaire was used. To check the association between abdominal obesity and lifestyle, binary logistic regression was used, with odds ratio (OR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: It was verified that 26.3% of drivers had abdominal obesity. In addition, bus drivers who had inadequate lifestyle in the "Nutrition" and "Type of behavior" domains were, respectively, 3.6 (95% CI: 1.3-9.5, p = 0.01) and 2.6 times (95% CI: 1.1-6.7; p = 0.04) more likely of having abdominal obesity when compared to those adequate in these lifestyle domains. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in four drivers had abdominal obesity and the "Nutrition" and "Type of Behavior" domains were associated with abdominal obesity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".