MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306842634 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1018460

Association between sedentary behavior, physical activity, and cardiovascular disease-related outcomes in adults—A meta-analysis and systematic review

2022· review· en· W4306842634 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisSedentary behaviorDiseasePhysical activityMedicineAssociation (psychology)Cardiovascular healthSedentary lifestyleSystematic reviewMEDLINEGerontologyPhysical therapyPsychologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Sedentary behavior (SB) and physical activity (PA) are modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, previous research on the effects of PA and SB on CVD has been relatively homogeneous. Our study investigated the association between PA, SB, and CVD-related outcomes. Methods A comprehensive search strategy was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from their inception to September 2022. We identified eligible studies according to PICOS: the populations comprised healthy adults, the interventions or exposures were PA or SB, the outcomes were CVD-related outcomes, and the study designs were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal studies (LS). Outcomes were pooled using fixed or random effects models, and the quality of individual studies was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Instrument and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Results A total of 148 RCTs and 36 LS were included, comprising a total of 75,075 participants. The study quality was rated as low to moderate. We found an increased hazard ratio (HR) for CVD in the population with SB (HR = 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26 to 1.43; I 2 = 52.3%; P heterogeneity < 0.001, random model) and a decreased HR for CVD in those who performed long-term PA (HR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.77; I 2 = 78.0%, P heterogeneity < 0.001, random model). Long-term PA improved the lipid profiles in healthy adults; participants in this group exhibited increased high-density lipoprotein (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.00 to 3.76; I 2 = 84.7%; P heterogeneity < 0.001, random model), decreased triglycerides (WMD = −7.27; 95% CI: −9.68 to −4.87; I 2 = 0%, P heterogeneity = 0.670, fixed model), and lower total-cholesterol (WMD = −6.84; 95% CI: −9.15 to −4.52; I 2 = 38.4%, P heterogeneity < 0.001, random model). Conclusions Long-term SB increases the risk of CVD in healthy adults, whereas PA reduces the risk of CVD and improves indicators associated with CVD. However, the ability of PA to improve blood lipids appeared to be limited. The detailed association of SB and PA on CVD needs to be further investigated in the future.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.258 · 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