Association of abdominal endurance with body adiposity, physical activity and sitting time in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Identify possible associations of muscular endurance with body adiposity, physical activity, and sedentary behavior in adolescents. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of 1773 adolescents (795 boys and 978 girls) aged 14 to 19 years from Florianopolis, Brazil. Abdominal endurance by the sit-up test proposed by the Canadian Physical Activity, Fitness and Lifestyle Assessment Approach. Body adiposity was estimated by the sum of triceps and subscapular skinfold thicknesses. Daily physical activity was estimated by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Short Form. Sedentary behavior was investigated using a self-report questionnaire, taking into account the time spent sitting on a weekday and a weekend day. Stepwise linear regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of abdominal endurance. Results: Boys (16,43 years) were more active (94.85 min/day vs 84.30 min/day, p < 0.001) and had higher abdominal endurance (23.67 repetitions vs 21.31 repetitions, p < 0.001) than girls. Girls (16,27 years) had a longer sitting time (414.89 min/day vs 376.12 min/day, p < 0.001) and higher body adiposity (31.69 mm vs 21.44 mm, p < 0.001) than boys. As for predictors, body adiposity (β = −0.207) was the only variable associated with abdominal endurance in boys, whereas body adiposity (β = −0.127) and physical activity (β = 0.099) were associated with abdominal endurance in girls. Conclusion: In both sexes, high levels of body adiposity negatively affect abdominal endurance. On the other hand, in girls, high levels of physical activity have a positive influence on abdominal endurance.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".