Physical activity energy expenditure and fat-free mass: relationship with metabolic syndrome in overweight or obese postmenopausal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Menopause transition is associated with detrimental changes in physical activity, body composition, and metabolic profile. Although physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) is inversely associated with metabolic syndrome (MetS) in individuals at higher risk of cardiovascular disease, the association is unknown in low-risk individuals. The aim of the study was to investigate the association between PAEE and MetS (prevalence and severity) in inactive overweight or obese postmenopausal women with a low Framingham Risk Score (<10%). Cross-sectional data of 126 participants were divided into quartiles based on PAEE (Quartile (Q)1 = lowest PAEE) while fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. MetS prevalence was significantly different between Q1 and Q4 (37.9% vs 13.3%, p = 0.03). After controlling for potential confounders, MetS severity was negatively associated with PAEE (B = −0.057, p < 0.01) and positively with FFM (B = 0.038, p < 0.001). Moderation analyses indicated that a greater FFM exacerbated the association between PAEE and MetS severity in Q1 and Q2 (PAEE × FFM; B = −0.004; p = 0.1). Our results suggest that displaying a low FRS and lower PAEE increase MetS prevalence and severity. In addition, greater FFM interacts with lower PAEE to worsens MetS severity, while higher PAEE lessened this effect. Novelty: Inactive individuals displaying higher daily PAEE also have a lower MetS prevalence. Greater FFM is associated with a worse MetS severity where a higher PAEE mitigated this deleterious effect in our cohort.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".