MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160520419 · doi:10.1161/circ.143.suppl_1.034

Abstract 034: A Healthy Lifestyle Score Including Sleep Duration And Risk Of Cardiovascular Disease

2021· article· en· W3160520419 on OpenAlexaff
Marta Guasch‐Ferré, Yanping Li, Shilpa N Bhupathiraju, Tianyi Huang, Jean‐Philippe Drouin‐Chartier, JoAnn E. Manson, Qi Sun, Eric B. Rimm, Kathryn M. Rexrode, Walter C. Willett, Meir J. Stampfer, F. B. Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioStroke (engine)Confidence intervalProportional hazards modelRisk factorInternal medicineProspective cohort studyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between a lifestyle score including sleep duration and CVD risk, and to estimate whether adding sleep duration into a traditional lifestyle score improved CVD risk prediction. Methods: A prospective analysis was conducted among 67250 women in the Nurses’ Health Study and 29279 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study who were followed from 1986 to 2016. The traditional lifestyle score was defined as not smoking, normal BMI(18.5-24.9 kg/m 2 ), ≥30 min/d of moderate physical activity, higher diet quality (top 40% of AHEI), moderate alcohol intake (women:5-15g/day; men:5-30g/day). Low-risk sleep duration, defined as sleeping ≥6 to <8 hours/day, was included as an additional component. Cox proportion hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of CVD, CHD, and stroke. We used the likelihood ratio test and C-statistics to compare the predictive value of the two scores. Results: A total of 11826 incident CVD cases were documented. In multivariable-adjusted models, each low-risk factor was independently and significantly associated with lower risk of CVD, CHD, and stroke. The multivariable-adjusted HRs (95% CIs) comparing six with zero low-risk factors in the healthy lifestyle score were 0.17(0.12, 0.23) for CVD, 0.15(0.10, 0.22) for CHD, and 0.19(0.12, 0.33) for stroke. Approximately 67% of CVD and CHD cases, and 62% stroke cases were attributable to poor adherence to a healthy lifestyle. P- value for likelihood ratio test comparing nested models including the traditional lifestyle score vs traditional lifestyle score plus sleep duration was <0.001. Adding sleep duration to the traditional score prediction model increased the C-statistics from 0.63 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.63) to 0.64 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.65)( P <0.001). Conclusions: Incorporating sleep duration into traditional lifestyle scores improves prediction of CVD risk and warrants consideration for inclusion in lifestyle recommendations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.279
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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207