Gender gap for accelerometry-based physical activity across different age groups in five Brazilian cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives This study aims to evaluate the gender inequalities in accelerometer-based physical activity (PA) across different age groups using data from five Pelotas (Brazil) cohorts. Methods The data comes from four birth cohort studies, covering all live births in the urban area of Pelotas for each respective year (1982, 1993, 2004, and 2015), and the ‘ Como vai? ’ cohort study focusing on 60 years and above. Raw accelerometry data were collected on the non-dominant wrist using GENEActive/Actigraph devices and processed with the GGIR package. Overall PA was calculated at ages 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 15, 18, 23, 30, and 60+ years, while moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) was calculated from six years onwards. Absolute (difference) and relative (ratio) gender inequalities were calculated and intersectionality between gender and wealth was also evaluated. Results The sample sizes per cohort ranged from 965 to 3462 participants. The mean absolute gender gap was 19.3 minutes (95%CI: 12.7; 25.9), with the widest gap at 18 years (32.9 minutes; 95%CI: 30.1; 35.7) for MVPA. The highest relative inequality was found in older adults (ratio 2.0; 95%CI 1.92 to 2.08). Our intersectionality results showed that the poorest men being the most active group, accumulating around 60 minutes more MVPA per day compared with the wealthiest women at age 18. Conclusion Men were more physically active than women in all ages evaluated. PA gender inequalities start at an early age and intensifies in transition periods of life. Relative inequalities were marked among older adults. What is already known on this topic Gender inequalities in physical activity have been reported globally, but most of the evidence is focused in adolescents and young adults. The literature lacks studies on children and older adults. What this study adds We present gender inequalities in accelerometer-based physical activity across several age groups, from 1 year olds to older adults. How this study might affect research, practice or policy Ou study provides a comprehensive description of gender inequalities, identifying key age groups for intervention.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".