Sex Differences in Physical Activity Levels and Sitting Time in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: While research demonstrates low levels of physical activity (PA) among adults living with atrial fibrillation (AF), there is limited evidence investigating sex differences in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) and sedentary time in this population. The primary aim was to examine sex differences in MVPA levels and sitting time between women and men with AF. Secondary aims explored sex differences in sociodemographic factors, outcome expectations, and task self-efficacy toward PA levels. METHODS: This was a subanalysis of the CHAMPLAIN-AF cohort study. Women and men with AF completed a survey, including the Short-Form International Physical Activity Questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 210 women (median = 66.0 yr: 95% CI, 63.5-68.0) and 409 men (median = 66.0 yr: 95% CI, 64.0-67.0) were included. No sex differences were observed in median weekly MVPA (60 min/wk: 95% CI, 0-120 in women vs 120 min/wk: 95% CI, 85-150 in men) and daily sitting time (5.5 hr/d: 95% CI, 5.0-6.0 in women vs 6.0 hr/d: 95% CI, 5.0-6.0 in men). Women engaged in significantly less vigorous-intensity PA than men ( P = .03) and demonstrated significantly lower task self-efficacy ( P < .01). Significant positive correlations in PA levels with outcome expectations (mostly weak) and task self-efficacy (mostly strong) were observed in both sexes. CONCLUSION: Most women and men with AF did not meet the global MVPA guidelines but met the sitting time recommendation. Women presented with lower vigorous-intensity physical activity levels and confidence than men. Strategies to increase physical activity behavior, considering sociodemographic factors and task self-efficacy, are needed and may differ between sexes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".