Urban design and cardio-metabolic risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accumulating evidence suggests that the built environment may be associated with cardiovascular disease via its influence on health behaviours. The aim of this study was to estimate the associations between traditional and novel neighbourhood built environment metrics and clinically assessed cardio-metabolic risk factors among a sample of adults in Canada. A total of 7171 participants from Albertas Tomorrow Project living in Alberta, Canada, were included. Cardio-metabolic risk factors were clinically measured. Two composite built environment metrics of traditional walkability and space syntax walkability were calculated. Among men, space syntax walkability was negatively associated with systolic and diastolic blood pressure (b = -0.87, 95% CI -1.43, -0.31 and b = -0.45, 95% CI -0.86, -0.04, respectively). Space syntax walkability was also associated with lower odds of overweight/obese among women and men (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.87, 0.99 and OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.79, 0.97, respectively). No significant associations were observed between traditional walkability and cardio-metabolic outcomes. This study showed that the novel built environment metric based on the space syntax theory was associated with some cardio-metabolic risk factors.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".