Physical activity in people living with rheumatoid arthritis compared to general population controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health benefits of regular physical activity have been well established. The Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines (CPAG) specify that adults should accumulate at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) per week. Our study objectives were to: 1) determine the proportion of RA patients in British Columbia (BC) who meet the CPAG, 2) identify the determinants of meeting the recommendations, and 3) compare the duration of time spent in MVPA relative to general population controls using self-reported data. A cross-sectional study was conducted using 2015 data from an annual survey administered to an RA cohort in BC. Normative physical activity data was obtained from the Canadian Community Health Survey. Adjusting for age and sex, the proportion of RA patients who met the guidelines was compared to the general population. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify significant determinants of meeting these guidelines and an ordinary least squares (OLS) model evaluated differences in average MVPA time. A two-part model evaluated the overall amount of MVPA performed by both the RA sample and the general population. After standardization, the sample of 169 RA patients was 21% less likely to meet the CPAG than controls (p=0.028). Individuals who were Caucasian (p=0.019), had better physical function (p=0.003), were an ex-smoker (p=0.022), and had more pain (p=0.018) were more likely to meet guidelines. Although, overall, RA patients spent significantly (p<0.001) less time in MVPA per week than controls, there was no significant difference between the groups among those who exercised weekly.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".