MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119263080 · doi:10.18632/aging.202497

Correlates of change in accelerometer-assessed total sedentary time and prolonged sedentary bouts among older English adults: results from five-year follow-up in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort

2021· article· en· W3119263080 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dharani Yerrakalva, Samantha Hajna, Katrien Wijndaele, Kate Westgate, Kay‐Tee Khaw, Simon J. Griffin, Søren Brage

Bibliographic record

VenueAging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMedical Research CouncilUniversity of CambridgeCancer Research UK
KeywordsMedicineDemographySedentary behaviorCohortCohort studyEPICSedentary lifestyleGerontologyPhysical activityPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Development of effective strategies to reduce sedentary time among older adults necessitates understanding of its determinants but longitudinal studies of this utilising objective measures are scarce. METHODS: Among 1536 older adults (≥60 years) in the EPIC-Norfolk study, sedentary time was assessed for seven days at two time-points using accelerometers. We assessed associations of change in total and prolonged bouts of sedentary time (≥ 30 minutes) with change in demographic and behavioural factors using multi-level regression. RESULTS: Over follow-up (5.3±1.9 years), greater increases in total sedentary time were associated with older age, being male, higher rate of increase in BMI, lower rate of increase in gardening (0.5 min/day/yr greater sedentary time per hour/week/yr less gardening, 95% CI 0.1, 1.0), a lower rate of increase in walking (0.2 min/day/yr greater sedentary time per hour/week/yr less walking, 95% CI 0.1, 0.3) and a higher rate of increase in television viewing. Correlates of change in prolonged sedentary bouts were similar. CONCLUSION: Individuals in specific sub-groups (older, male, higher BMI) and who differentially participate in certain behaviours (less gardening, less walking and more television viewing) but not others increase their sedentary time at a higher rate than others; utilising this information could inform successful intervention content and targeting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgingSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207