Daily objective physical activity and sedentary time in adults with COPD using spirometry data from Canadian Measures Health Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is expected to be the third leading cause of premature death and disability in Canada and around the world by the year 2020. The study aims to compare objective physical activity (PA) and sedentary time in a population-based sample of adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and comparison a group, and to investigate whether these behaviors differ according to COPD severity. Methods From the 2007-2013 Canadian Health Measures Survey dataset, accelerometer and pre-bronchodilator spirometry data were available for 6441 participants, aged 35 to 79. Two weighted analyses of covariance were performed with adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, accelerometer wearing time and season, work, smoking (cotinine), education level and income. A set of sensitivity analyses were carried out to examine the possible effect of COPD, and type of control group. Results A cross-sectional weighted analysis indicated that 14,6% of study participants had a measured airflow obstruction consistent with COPD. Time in PA (moderate-vigorous and light PA), number of steps and sedentary duration were not significantly different in participants with COPD, taken together, compared to controls. However, moderate to severe COPD participants (stages ≥2) had a significantly lower daily time spent in PA of moderate and vigorous intensity level compared to controls. Conclusions Canadian adults with COPD with all disease severity levels combined did not perform lower daily duration of light, moderate and vigorous PA, number of steps and higher daily sedentary time than those without airflow obstruction. Both groups are extremely sedentary and have low PA duration. Thus, “move more and sit less” public health strategy could equally target adults with or without COPD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".