MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396629204 · doi:10.5334/gh.1308

More People, More Active, More Often for Heart Health – Taking Action on Physical Activity

2024· review· en· W4396629204 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor Shilton, Adrian Bauman, Birgit Beger, Anna Chalkley, Beatriz Champagne, Martina Elings-Pers, Billie Giles‐Corti, Shifalika Goenka, Mark R. Miller, Karen Milton, Adewale L. Oyeyemi, Robert Ross, James F. Sallis, Kelcey Armstrong-Walenczak, Jo Salmon, Laurie P. Whitsel

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Heart · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical activityDiseaseEnvironmental healthDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesBlood pressureCardiovascular healthGerontologyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical inactivity is a leading contributor to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Almost 500 million new cases of preventable noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) will occur globally between 2020 and 2030 due to physical inactivity, costing just over US$300 billion, or around US$ 27 billion annually (WHO 2022). Active adults can achieve a reduction of up to 35% in risk of death from cardiovascular disease. Physical activity also helps in moderating cardiovascular disease risk factors such as high blood pressure, unhealthy weight and type 2 diabetes. For people with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and many cancers, physical activity is an established and evidence-based part of treatment and management. For children and young people, physical activity affords important health benefits. Physical activity can also achieve important cross-sector goals. Increased walking and cycling can reduce journeys by vehicles, air pollution, and traffic congestion and contribute to increased safety and liveability in cities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal HeartSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207