MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284680076 · doi:10.2196/34717

Estimating Cardiorespiratory Fitness Without Exercise Testing or Physical Activity Status in Healthy Adults: Regression Model Development and Validation

2022· article· en· W4284680076 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert A. Sloan, Marco Visentini-Scarzanella, Susumu S. Sawada, Xuemei Sui, Jonathan Myers

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessQuartileMedicineLinear regressionRegression analysisTreadmillCorrelationPhysical therapyMetabolic equivalentExplained variationAnalysis of varianceStatisticsInternal medicinePhysical activityMathematicsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality. Most health care settings use some type of electronic health record (EHR) system. However, many EHRs do not have CRF or physical activity data collected, thereby limiting the types of investigations and analyses that can be done. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a nonexercise equation to estimate and classify CRF (in metabolic equivalent tasks) using variables commonly available in EHRs. METHODS: Participants were 42,676 healthy adults (female participants: n=9146, 21.4%) from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study examined from 1974 to 2005. The nonexercise estimated CRF was based on sex, age, measured BMI, measured resting heart rate, measured resting blood pressure, and smoking status. A maximal treadmill test measured CRF. RESULTS: After conducting nonlinear feature augmentation, separate linear regression models were used for male and female participants to calculate correlation and regression coefficients. Cross-classification of actual and estimated CRF was performed using low CRF categories (lowest quintile, lowest quartile, and lowest tertile). The multiple correlation coefficient (R) was 0.70 (mean deviation 1.33) for male participants and 0.65 (mean deviation 1.23) for female participants. The models explained 48.4% (SE estimate 1.70) and 41.9% (SE estimate 1.56) of the variance in CRF for male and female participants, respectively. Correct category classification for low CRF (lowest tertile) was found in 77.2% (n=25,885) of male participants and 74.9% (n=6,850) of female participants. CONCLUSIONS: The regression models developed in this study provided useful estimation and classification of CRF in a large population of male and female participants. The models may provide a practical method for estimating CRF derived from EHRs for population health research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207