Relations Between BMI Trajectories and Habitual Physical Activity Measured by a Smartwatch in the Electronic Cohort of the Framingham Heart Study: Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity is rising. Most previous studies that examined the relations between BMI and physical activity (PA) measured BMI at a single timepoint. The association between BMI trajectories and habitual PA remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the relations between BMI trajectories and habitual step-based PA among participants enrolled in the electronic cohort of the Framingham Heart Study (eFHS). METHODS: We used a semiparametric group-based modeling to identify BMI trajectories from eFHS participants who attended research examinations at the Framingham Research Center over 14 years. Daily steps were recorded from the smartwatch provided at examination 3. We excluded participants with <30 days or <5 hours of smartwatch wear data. We used generalized linear models to examine the association between BMI trajectories and daily step counts. RESULTS: We identified 3 trajectory groups for the 837 eFHS participants (mean age 53 years; 57.8% [484/837] female). Group 1 included 292 participants whose BMI was stable (slope 0.005; P=.75), group 2 included 468 participants whose BMI increased slightly (slope 0.123; P<.001), and group 3 included 77 participants whose BMI increased greatly (slope 0.318; P<.001). The median follow-up period for step count was 516 days. Adjusting for age, sex, wear time, and cohort, participants in groups 2 and 3 took 422 (95% CI -823 to -21) and 1437 (95% CI -2084 to -790) fewer average daily steps, compared with participants in group 1. After adjusting for metabolic and social risk factors, group 2 took 382 (95% CI -773 to 10) and group 3 took 1120 (95% CI -1766 to -475) fewer steps, compared with group 1. CONCLUSIONS: In this community-based eFHS, participants whose BMI trajectory increased greatly over time took significantly fewer steps, compared with participants with stable BMI trajectories. Our findings suggest that greater weight gain may correlate with lower levels of step-based physical activity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".