Associations of neighborhood walkability with moderate to vigorous physical activity: an application of compositional data analysis comparing compositional and non-compositional approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared the relation between neighborhood features and moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) using linear regression analysis and the more novel compositional data analysis (CoDA). Compositional data analysis allows us to take the time children allocate to different movement behaviours during a 24-hour time period into account. METHODOLOGY: Data from youth participants (n = 409) in the QUALITY (QUebec Adipose and Lifestyle InvesTigation in Youth) cohort were included. Time spent in MVPA, light physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep ("24-hour movement behaviours") was measured using accelerometers. Neighborhood data were collected using a geographic information system and through direct observation. In CoDA models, we used orthogonal logratio coordinates, which allows for the association of neighbourhood walkability with MVPA to be estimated with respect to the average composition of all other behaviours within a 24-hour time frame. In baseline linear regression models, MVPA was regressed cross-sectionally on neighborhood walkability. All models were stratified by sex, and controlled for BMI z-scores, pubertal development, seasonal variation, parental education, and neighbourhood safety. RESULTS: Based on CoDA, girls who lived in more walkable neighborhoods had 10% higher daily MVPA (95% CI: 2%, 19%), taking into account all other movement behaviours. Based on linear regression, girls who resided in more walkable neighborhoods engaged in 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 6.6) more minutes of MVPA per day on average than girls residing in less walkable neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike with traditional linear models, all movement behaviours were included in a single model using CoDA, allowing for a more complete picture of the strength and direction of the association between neighbourhood Walkability and MVPA. Application of CoDA to investigate determinants of physical activity provides additional insight into potential mechanisms and the ways in which people allocate their time.
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 | 0.024 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".