Associations between multiple positive health behaviors and cardiometabolic risk using 3 alternative measures of physical activity: NHANES 2005–2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to investigate the association between clustered cardiometabolic risk (CCMR) and health-behavior indices comprising 3 different measures of physical activity, screen time, diet and sleep in NHANES 2005–2006. CCMR was calculated by standardizing and summarizing measures of blood pressure, fasting glucose, triglycerides, insulin, high-density lipoprotein and waist circumference to create a z score. Three health behavior indices were constructed with a single point allocated to each of the following lower risk behaviors: muscle strengthening activity, healthy eating score, sleep disorder/disruption, sleep duration, screen time and physical activity (self-reported moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA] (Index Score-SR), accelerometer-measured MVPA (Index Score-MVPA) or accelerometer-measured steps Index Score-Steps). Linear regression models explored associations between index scores and CCMR. In the sample (n = 1537, 52% male, aged 45.5 [SE: 0.9] years), reporting 0–5 vs. 6 health behaviors using Index Score-SR and Index Score-MVPA, and 0–4 vs. 6 health behaviors using Index Score-Steps, were associated with a significantly higher CCMR. The beta (β [95% CI]) for zero vs. 6 behaviors were Index Score-SR (2.86 [2.02, 3.69], Index Score-MVPA (2.41 [1.49, 3.33] and Index Score-Steps (2.41 [1.68, 3.15]). Irrespective of the measure of physical activity, engaging in fewer positive health behaviors was associated with greater CCMR. Novelty: Physical activity, screen time, diet and sleep may exert synergistic/cumulative effects on clustered cardiometabolic risk. A greater number of positive health behaviors was associated with a lower clustered cardiometabolic risk factor score. The reduction in cardiometabolic risk was similar irrespective of which physical activity measure was used.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".