Association between circadian physical activity patterns and mortality in the UK Biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The benefit of physical activity (PA) for increasing longevity is well-established, however, the impact of diurnal timing of PA on mortality remains poorly understood. We aimed to derive circadian PA patterns and investigate their associations with all-cause mortality. Methods We used 24 h PA time series from 96,351 UK Biobank participants aged between 42 and 79 years at accelerometry in 2013–2015. Functional principal component analysis (fPCA) was applied to obtain circadian PA patterns. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, we related the loading scores of these fPCs to estimate risk of mortality. Results During 6.9 years of follow-up, 2,850 deaths occurred. Four distinct fPCs accounted for 96% of the variation of the accelerometry data. Using a loading score of zero (i.e., average overall PA during the day) as the reference, a fPC1 score of + 2 (high overall PA) was inversely associated with mortality (Hazard ratio, HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.84–0.99), whereas a score of -2 (low overall PA) was associated with higher mortality (1.69; 95% CI: 1.57–1.81; p for non-linearity < 0.001). Significant inverse linear associations with mortality were observed for engaging in midday PA instead of early and late PA (fPC3) (HR for a 1-unit increase 0.88; 95% CI: 0.83–0.93). In contrast, midday and nocturnal PA instead of early and evening PA (fPC4) were positively associated with mortality (HR for a 1-unit increase 1.16; 95% CI: 1.08–1.25). Conclusion Our results suggest that it is less important during which daytime hours one is active but rather, to engage in some level of elevated PA for longevity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".