Comparison of Seven Healthy Lifestyle Scores Cardiometabolic Health: Age, Sex, and Lifestyle Interactions in the NutrIMDEA Web-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global health status concerns both the assessment of wellbeing as well as the associated individualized determinants including quality of life and lifestyle factors. This study aimed to evaluate seven cardiometabolic health related scores and the influence, as well as interactions of lifestyle, heart-related and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) factors in order to inform the future implementation of precision public health (PPH). METHODS: Data collected from 17,333 participants who were enrolled of the NutrIMDEA study. The data collection period was between May 2020 and November 2020 through an online survey. The baseline questionnaire collected information on socio-demographic data, cardiometabolic history, anthropometric variables and lifestyle aspects. Also, physical and mental component scores of SF12 Health Survey (PCS12/MCS12) were assessed as HRQoL features, which were applied to estimated seven scores (LS7, HLS, 20-years DRS %, FBS, CLI, WAI derived, LWB-I). RESULTS: Most indices (except FBS, CLI, 20-years DRS % and WAI derived) showed that cardiometabolic outcomes and HRQoL measures were dependent on interactions by age and sex. The largest ponderal effect was found in PA total and Mediterranean Diet Score (MEDAS-14) interaction using LS7 as reference. However, using LWB-I as standard, the greatest effect was found in the quality-of-life feature MCS12. Noteworthy, LS7 showed good discrimination against PCS12, while LWB-I demonstrated excellent discrimination to MCS12. CONCLUSIONS: A major finding was the interplay between MEDAS-14 and PA on the LS7 scale as well as major effects of lifestyle factors and MCS12/PCS12 among scores, which need to be accounted with precision when implementing cardiometabolic screenings with PPH purposes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".