MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999512918

Cross-Sectional Associations Between Movement Behaviours, Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome in an Out-Patient Population with Suspected Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction

2020· other· en· W6999512918 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetabolic syndromeObesityPopulationLogistic regressionAbdominal obesityReferral
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction (CMVD), affects the smaller vasculature and is difficult to diagnose without invasive tests. Little is known about the relationship between movement behaviours and CMVD, which may offer insight for primary prevention and early management. Objective: Examine and compare patterns of obesity, metabolic health, and movement behaviors amongst patients with CMVD and epicardial disease. Methods: The relationship between metabolic health, movement behaviors, and CMVD were estimated by logistic regression (unadjusted and adjusted for confounders). Results: Sleep quality and quantity were significantly worse in those with suspected coronary microvascular dysfunction. Physical activity was not significantly different between referral groups. Interestingly, obese-CMVD patients were 31.7% more likely to have suspected CMVD compared to their normal weight counterparts. Conclusions: Despite a relatively high prevalence of inactivity, sleep disturbance, MetS, and general and abdominal obesity, patterns of lifestyle factors did not materially differ between cases of suspected CMVD and epicardial disease.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)Same topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207