Cardiometabolic disease risk in relation to objectively measured physical activity, sedentary behaviour in South African adults with knee and hip osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to investigate the relationship between cardiometabolic disease risk and time spent in device-measured activity behaviours in a cohort of people with advanced osteoarthritis (OA) awaiting joint replacement surgery.Materials and methods Cardiometabolic risk biomarkers were assessed in people with OA (n = 96; hip n = 38, knee n = 58; mean (SD) age = 64.3 (9.8) years; 71% female). Physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) were measured by accelerometer over seven days (24 h/day).Results There were similar patterns of PA and SB between the hip and knee OA participants except for total number of steps (hip = 3365 (2926) vs knee 4344 (2836) steps/day; p = 0.018) and total stepping time (hip = 50.8 (38.2) vs knee = 67.2 (38.5) min/day; p = 0.005). Each additional cardiometabolic risk factor accumulated was associated with a 26.3 min/day increase in sedentary behaviour (p = 0.032; 95% CI: 2.3, 50.2), a 26.3 min/day decrease in upright time (p = 0.032; −50.2, –2.3) and a 23.6 min/day decrease in standing time (p = 0.032; −45.1, –2.1).Conclusions In people with hip or knee OA, increased cardiometabolic disease risk was associated with more sitting and less upright and standing time. Findings support targeting reductions in sedentary behaviour for improvements in cardiometabolic health in people with osteoarthritis.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONKnee and hip osteoarthritis is a condition which is associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic disease but also due to the low levels of physical activity and high levels of sedentary behaviour.Offsetting sedentary behaviour with light physical activity offers a feasible interventional target to reduce the risk of cardiometabolic disease in people with hip and knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".