Occupational life-style programme over 12 months and changes of metabolic risk profile, vascular function, and physical fitness in blue-collar workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Occupational health programmes have been successfully implemented to improve body composition, physical fitness and cardiovascular risk. However, most programmes have been small and have not included long-term evaluation. Therefore, we evaluated a twelve-month life-style change programme in a German refinery. Methods We offered a supervised six-week endurance exercise programme (2 × 90 min/week), starting after a two-day life-style seminar. After the active intervention and a half-day refresher seminar, employees were encouraged to continue exercising over one year on their own, with monthly supervised sessions to maintain adherence. Anthropometry, bicycle ergometry, cardio-metabolic risk profile, inflammatory parameters, and vascular function e.g. endothelial function was studied at baseline, after three and after twelve months. Results Of 550 employees, n = 327 (age 40.8 ± 9.7 years, 88% males) participated in the study. Twelve-month intervention was associated with a reduced waist circumference (92.6 ± 12.2 to 90.8 ± 11.7 cm, 95% confidence interval for the mean change (CI): -2.5 to -1.1 cm) and a gain in maximal exercise capacity (202 ± 39.6 to 210 ± 38.9 Watt; 95% CI: + 5.1 to + 10.9 Watt). Metabolic and inflammatory parameters likewise HbA1c and C-reactive protein improved in central tendency at a local 95% level of confidence. Vascular function e.g. Reactive-Hyperaemia-Index revealed a slight reduction, whereas no statistically robust changes in mean Cardio-Ankle-Vascular-Index and mean Ankle-Brachial-Index were observed. Conclusion Health education added by a six-week supervised exercise programme was associated with minor long-term twelve-month improvements of body composition as well as physical fitness and a concomitant improvement of inflammatory state. These changes were, however, not clinically relevant and not accompanied by statistically robust improvements of vascular function. Trial registration ClinTrialsGov: NCT01919632; date of registration: August 9, 2013; retrospectively registered.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".