Exploring the Association of a Total Physical Activity Energy Expenditure and Diabetes Mellitus in Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Canadian Health Measures Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical activity (PA) guidelines for adults recommend participation in aerobic activities of moderate-to-vigorous intensity and a minimum of two sessions of resistance training (RT) weekly. These guidelines account for a small amount of the total PA energy expenditure and include no recommendation for low intensity activities (sleeping, sedentary behavior, and light intensity PA). Consequently, there is a need to investigate the benefits of total PA energy expenditure and diabetes mellitus (DM); to investigate the association between total PA energy expenditure and DM in adults aged 45 years or above. Methods: Data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS; n = 5591) were used for the cross-sectional analysis. DM was measured using hemoglobin glycated (A1c) and questionnaires in adults aged 45 and above. PA and sedentary behavior were estimated using accelerometry. Sleep and RT were self-reported. Total PA energy expenditure was computed using the sum of metabolic equivalent of task-min/week. Results: The mean age of the sample was 58.0 ± 0.2 years old. No associations were observed between total PA energy expenditure and self-reported T2DM in all models (P > 0.05). For objectively measured DM, this association was significant when adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, and smoking [OR: 0.45; 95% CI (0.25–0.80)]; however, the association was no longer significant once adjusted for waist circumference and further adjusted for meeting the International PA Guidelines [OR: 0.64; 95% CI (0.33–1.27)] (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Total PA energy expenditure performed weekly is not associated with DM when considering other known risk factors, including waist circumference and meeting the PA guidelines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".