Differences in daily objective physical activity and sedentary time between women with self-reported fibromyalgia and controls: results from the Canadian Health Measures Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionPhysical activity and sedentary behaviors are important modifiable factors that influence health and quality of life in women with fibromyalgia. The purpose of this study was to compare objectively assessed physical activity and sedentary time in women self-reporting fibromyalgia with a control group. MethodData were drawn from the Canadian Health Measures Survey cycle 1, 2 and 3 conducted by Statistics Canada. We included women aged 18 to 79 years with complete accelerometer data. We performed one-way analyses of covariance (adjusted-for socio-demographic and health factors) to determine mean differences in physical activity and sedentary variables (minutes per day of moderate and vigorous physical activity, light physical activity, sedentary and daily steps) between women with and without fibromyalgia.ResultsIn total, 4132 participants were included. A cross-sectional weighted analysis indicated that 3,1% of participants self-reported a diagnosis of fibromyalgia. Participants with fibromyalgia spent less time than controls engaged in moderate and vigorous physical activity (M = 19.2 min/d (SE=0.7) vs M = 9.1 min/d (SE=1.2), p = 0.03, η2= 0.01). No significant differences were found for daily time spent in light physical activity, sedentary activities and number of steps.ConclusionWomen participants with self-reported fibromyalgia spent significantly less time in moderate and vigorous physical activity than control. Physical activity promotion interventions for women with self-reported fibromyalgia should, as a priority, target physical activities with moderate to vigorous intensity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".