Thirteen-Year Associations of Occupational and Leisure-Time Physical Activity with Cardiorespiratory Fitness in CARDIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Differential effects on fitness are hypothesized to contribute to the opposing health effects of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) and occupational physical activity (OPA). As such, this study examined cross-sectional and longitudinal associations of fitness with LTPA and OPA. METHODS: This study examined fitness associations with LTPA and OPA across 13 yr in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study (years 7 (baseline), 10, 15, and 20 (follow-up) examinations). Fitness was measured at baseline and follow-up via symptom-limited maximal graded exercise test (GXT) duration (in seconds), whereas LTPA and OPA were self-reported during each examination. Baseline and follow-up cross-sectional associations of LTPA (low, medium, high) and OPA (0, 1-6, and ≥6 months with OPA) with fitness were examined using linear regression. Longitudinal linear regression examined associations between 13-yr LTPA (low, medium, or high) and OPA (no, decreasing, or increasing) trajectories with fitness at follow-up, adjusted for baseline values. All models adjusted for center, sex, race, age, education, smoking history, alcohol intake, resting blood pressure, diabetes status, and body mass index. Stratified analyses examined associations by sex (female/male), race (Black/White), and LTPA groups. RESULTS: Compared with low, medium, and high LTPA were positively associated with fitness in all analyses ( P < 0.001). Reporting 1-6 or ≥6 months with OPA was negatively associated with fitness in cross-sectional follow-up models ( β = -15.6 and -15.4, respectively; P ≤ 0.01). Longitudinally, those with increasing OPA had lower follow-up fitness compared with no OPA ( β = -16.41, P < 0.01). Negative associations of OPA with fitness were not meaningfully different across sex and race groups. Significant LTPA-OPA interactions were observed ( P < 001). CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity research and public health promotion should consider domain-specific associations on cardiovascular health.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".