MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7057350054

Identifying Risk Profiles for Sedentary Behavior in Youth Using Recursive Partitioning Based on Individual, Familial, and Neighborhood Environment Factors

2016· other· en· W7057350054 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEspaceINRS (National Institute for Scientific Research (Canada)) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedentary behaviorObesityPhysical activitySedentary lifestyleRecursive partitioningCovariateMaximum likelihood
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Being sedentary is an established risk factor for obesity and related cardiometabolic complications, independently of physical activity (PA) levels. We used recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) to identify unique combinations of individual, familial, and neighborhood factors that increased the likelihood of being very sedentary. Methods: Baseline data were collected in 2005-2008 for 512 Quebec youth (aged 8-10 years) with a history of parental obesity (QUALITY study). Sedentary behavior and PA were assessed by accelerometry (Actigraph). Children with ≥10h of valid wear time on at least 4 days were retained for analysis. Children were categorized as being very sedentary if they accumulated at least 300 minutes/day of ≤100 counts/min on average. Fifteen variables were submitted to the recursive partitioning process in order to identify sub-groups by likelihood of being very sedentary. MLR was used to estimate likelihood of being very sedentary across subgroups, controlling for the child’s age, sex, household income, and PA level. Indicator variables were used, retaining the lowest risk group as the reference. Results: Data were complete for 445/512 participants. Six variables were retained to construct the classification tree. A total of 7 subgroups were identified, with proportions very sedentary equal to 5%, 22%, 31%, 26%, 33%, 40%, and 77%, respectively. The 7 risk subgroups, in order of increasing likelihood of being very sedentary, comprised children who: (1) met MVPA guidelines (engaged in at least 60 min/day of MVPA), (2) did not meet MVPA guidelines, but resided in lower poverty areas, (3) did not meet MVPA guidelines, resided in higher poverty areas, but with a higher park area ratio; (4) did not meet MVPA guidelines, resided in higher poverty areas, had a lower park area ratio, but did not have an obese father; (5) did not meet MVPA guidelines, resided in higher poverty areas, had a lower park area ratio, had an obese father, but lived in more urban areas; (6) same as subgroup (5) but living in less urban areas and not exceeding 2 hours/day of screentime on weekends; and finally (7) same as subgroup (6) but exceeding 2 hours per day of screentime on weekends. In multivariable logistic regressions, compared to subgroup 1, groups 2 to 7 were significantly more likely to be very sedentary, after controlling for age, sex and household income. However, after further controlling for minutes of MVPA, only children in group 7 remained significantly more likely to be categorized as very sedentary (OR: 7.3, 95% CI: 1.3-45.1). Conclusion: The relationship between physical activity and sedentary behaviour is complex. Specific combinations of factors appear particularly conducive to engaging in excessive sedentary behaviour, with weekend screen time possibly being the most salient individual contributor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEspaceINRS (National Institute for Scientific Research (Canada))→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→