ライフサイエンスコーパス: metabolic equivalent

1 rous intensity physical activity (>6 resting metabolic equivalents).

2 t rate, with an exercise capacity of 7 +/- 2 metabolic equivalents.

3 lary wedge pressure and peak exercise CO and metabolic equivalents.

4 using body weights from national surveys and metabolic equivalents.

5 ved a lower maximal workload (PEX group, 8.2 metabolic equivalents +/- 1.7; control group, 11.8 metab

6 significantly increased minutes per week of metabolic equivalents (4 studies; standardized mean diff

7 lic equivalents +/- 1.7; control group, 11.8 metabolic equivalents +/- 5.5; P < .0001).

8 Fitness was also estimated in metabolic equivalents according to treadmill time.

9 justment for potential confounders, 1 higher metabolic equivalent achieved during treadmill testing w

10 olesterol, a 1 unit greater fitness level in metabolic equivalents achieved in midlife was associated

11 ment depression on ETT (P = 0.004), and peak metabolic equivalents achieved on ETT (P = 0.001).

12 stress right ventricular systolic pressure, metabolic equivalents achieved, and heart rate recovery

13 E inhibitors and a greater level of achieved metabolic equivalents among the former (P<0.05 for both)

14 Estimated functional capacity in metabolic equivalents and heart rate recovery, physiolog

15 ar with sildenafil use (mean [SD], 4.5 [1.0] metabolic equivalents) and placebo use (mean [SD], 4.6 [

16 y nonrheumatic MS, lower % age-sex predicted metabolic equivalents, and higher peak-stress right vent

17 ower peak VO2 (beta = -0.20; p < 0.0001) and metabolic equivalents (beta = -0.21; p < 0.0001), indepe

18 For increased time, 3 or more metabolic equivalents both greater QS% (beta = 0.0164 [0

19 y to traditional variables including age and metabolic equivalents but failed to have diagnostic powe

20 iring energy expenditure between 1.6 and 2.9 metabolic equivalents, captured using an accelerometer o

21 Fitness gain (>=2 metabolic equivalents compared with <2 metabolic equival

22 is 9% lower (95%CI 4-14%, 854 deaths) per 1-metabolic equivalent difference in CRF.

23 workload (8.4 +/- 2.3 [Ex 8] vs. 8.9 +/- 2.6 metabolic equivalents [Ex 48]) was similar in both exerc

24 Vigorous exercise was defined as >=6 metabolic equivalents for >60 hours per year.

25 ity physical activity, requiring >or=3 METs (metabolic equivalents) for >or=30 minutes almost daily,

26 oups accumulated, respectively, 13.8 vs 10.5 metabolic equivalent-h/wk of physical activity volume (d

27 e Cox analysis, percent of age/sex-predicted metabolic equivalents (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidenc

28 r systolic pressure) and exercise variables (metabolic equivalents, heart rate recovery at 1 minute a

29 ive risk, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.6 to 0.7] for >32.6 metabolic equivalent hours of exercise per week vs. 0 to

30 lent hours of exercise per week vs. 0 to 2.7 metabolic equivalent hours of exercise per week), and ob

31 s of medication use (dependent variable) vs. metabolic equivalent hours per day (METhr/d) of running,

32 total deaths for women expending at least 9 metabolic equivalent hours per week (approximately 2 to

33 Physical activity was categorized by metabolic equivalent hours per week (MET-h/wk).

34 Prepandemic PA, categorized into 3 groups by metabolic equivalent hours per week: inactive (0-3.5), i

35 sical activity (MD=-1.41 [95%CI:-2.07,-0.71] metabolic-equivalent hours/week) and worse A-MeDi scores

36 est overall physical activity level (>/=32.3 metabolic equivalent-hours/day vs. <9.7 metabolic equiva

37 and lowest level of physical activity (<12.6 metabolic equivalent-hours/day) had a greater risk of de

38 32.3 metabolic equivalent-hours/day vs. <9.7 metabolic equivalent-hours/day) had lower risks of death

39 Agreement between the diaries and STAR-Q (metabolic equivalent-hours/day) was strongest for occupa

40 occupational, and nonoccupational activity (metabolic equivalent-hours/day) were obtained over 12 mo

41 CI: 0.10, 0.64), and those expending >/=21.1 metabolic equivalent-hours/week experienced a 74% reduct

42 Metabolic equivalent-hours/week of physical activity wer

43 riate linear regression analyses showed that metabolic equivalents-hours in 1994 were significantly a

44 Physical activity was expressed as metabolic equivalents-hours per week.

45 score (HR, 1.92), lower % age-sex predicted metabolic equivalents (HR, 1.22), and higher peak-stress

46 Each 1-metabolic equivalent increase in exercise capacity was a

47 The risk reduction per 1-metabolic equivalent increase ranged from approximately

48 Risk reduction per 1-metabolic equivalent increase, discriminative ability (c

49 Each 1-metabolic equivalent increment in treadmill performance

50 ers, vigorous and nonvigorous levels of EEE (metabolic equivalent levels > or = 6.0 and <6.0, respect

51 iography, lower percent of age/sex-predicted metabolic equivalents, lower heart rate recovery, atrial

52 lents) and placebo use (mean [SD], 4.6 [1.0] metabolic equivalents; mean difference, 0.07; 95% CI, -.

53 ard ratio for cardiovascular death for every metabolic equivalent (MET) decrement in exercise capacit

54 Engaging in 8.75 or more metabolic equivalent (MET) hours per week of recreationa

55 A metabolic equivalent (MET) score was calculated from rep

56 Moderate exercise volumes of 3 to <5 metabolic equivalent (MET)-h and 5 to <7 MET-h per week

57 sical activity were used to calculate weekly metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours of total and vigorous p

58 [CI], 4%-9%; P<.001) for each increase of 3 metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours per week of activity (e

59 regular exercise but who reported 10 or more metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours/day of nonexercise acti

60 time, and total physical activity levels in metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours/day.

61 mone use (-23%), being physically active (21 metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours/week vs. 2 MET-hours/we

62 = 6 hours/day) and physical activity (<24.5 metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours/week) combined were 1.9

63 one of four fitness categories based on peak metabolic equivalents (MET) achieved during exercise tes

64 isure-time physical activity on the basis of metabolic equivalents (MET) for reported activities and

65 age, the peak exercise capacity measured in metabolic equivalents (MET) was the strongest predictor

66 men met physical activity guidelines [>or=10 metabolic equivalents (MET)-h/wk], 19% met fruit/vegetab

67 Exercise capacity was measured in metabolic equivalents (MET).

68 meters, > 489 meters) and exercise behavior (metabolic equivalent [MET] -h/wk) adjusted for KPS and o

69 commended at least 150 minutes per week (7.5 metabolic equivalent [MET] hours per week) of moderate-i

70 e the association between exercise exposure (metabolic equivalent [MET] hours/week(-1)) and risk of m

71 ss the quantitative relationship between PA (metabolic equivalent [MET]-min/wk) and HF risk across st

72 Each decline in activity of 10 metabolic equivalent [MET]-times per week was associated

73 Compared with low physical activity (<600 metabolic equivalents [MET] x minutes per week or <150 m

74 oup for energy expenditure (expressed as the metabolic-equivalent [MET] score), women in increasing q

75 ) deaths occurring in patients achieving < 6 metabolic equivalents (METs) (log-rank chi-square 86, p

76 After adjusting for age, sex, metabolic equivalents (METs) achieved, ischaemia/infarct

77 established fitness categories based on peak metabolic equivalents (METs) achieved.

78 Fitness categories were based on peak metabolic equivalents (METs) achieved.

79 gnificantly lower BP, HR, and RPP at 5 and 7 metabolic equivalents (METs) and peak exercise than thos

80 energy expenditure requirements expressed in metabolic equivalents (METs) and summed to yield a total

81 determine the prognostic value of estimated metabolic equivalents (METs) based on self-reported func

82 respiratory fitness was estimated by maximal metabolic equivalents (METs) calculated from treadmill t

83 The mean work load was 7.7 +/- 2.3 metabolic equivalents (METs) for men and 6.5 +/- 1.9 MET

84 We defined the peak metabolic equivalents (METs) level associated with no in

85 e the exposures: (1) questionnaire-estimated metabolic equivalents (METs), (2) ability to climb 1 flo

86 ntricular systolic pressure (RVSP), exercise metabolic equivalents (METs), and percentage of age-/sex

87 ntilatory power, ventilatory threshold, peak metabolic equivalents (METs), peak exercise time, partia

88 Fitness, in metabolic equivalents (METs), was estimated from a maxim

89 mpared these results with self-reported DASI metabolic equivalents (METs).

90 nt exercise stress testing to determine peak metabolic equivalents (METs).

91 ated physical exercise were quantified using metabolic equivalents (METs).

92 Exercise capacity in metabolic equivalents (METs).

93 ased on a Veterans Affairs cohort (predicted metabolic equivalents [METs] = 18 - [0.15 x age]) had th

94 1.5 to 11.0), low work load (defined as < 7 metabolic equivalents [METs] for men and < 5 METs for wo

95 en) who had good exercise capacity (> or = 5 metabolic equivalents [METs] for women, > or = 7 METs fo

96 d exercise workload (<7, 7 to 9, or > or =10 metabolic equivalents [METs]) and were compared for exer

97 nsity physical activity (time expending >/=3 metabolic equivalents [METs]) by people with COPD.

98 in those with high exercise capacity (>/=10 metabolic equivalents [METs]) plus a maximal test (>/=85

99 pacity (DASI scores <25, equivalent to <or=7 metabolic equivalents [METs]), and 39% had obstructive C

100 rrhythmia syndromes to moderate activity (<7 metabolic equivalents [METs]).

101 , echocardiographic, and exercise variables (metabolic equivalents [METs], % of age-sex-predicted MET

102 l 10 mg or placebo, followed by ETT (5 to 10 metabolic equivalents [METS], Bruce protocol) 1 h postdo

103 ndependent association of physical activity (metabolic equivalents [METs]/wk), calibrated dietary ene

104 by self-report at baseline and expressed as metabolic equivalent-minutes per week.

105 g even <51 min, <6 miles, 1 to 2 times, <506 metabolic equivalent-minutes, or <6 miles/h was sufficie

106 nnaire-assessed relative energy expenditure (metabolic equivalent-minutes/day) were higher in women (

107 95% CI, 0.75-0.83) for each unit increase in metabolic equivalent of oxygen consumption.

108 hat improving relative aerobic capacity by 1 metabolic equivalent of task (approximately 3.5 mL/kg/mi

109 per day) and walking intensity, expressed as metabolic equivalent of task (MET) per minute.

110 hours of moderate or vigorous exercise and a metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score were computed.

111 Exercise volumes were multiplied by metabolic equivalent of task (MET) scores to calculate M

112 e built a machine learning model to estimate metabolic equivalent of task (MET) values/minute using s

113 f CVD [HR fourth quartile, which was >= 24.4 metabolic equivalent of task (MET)-h/wk, compared to fir

114 ); physical activity: meanregular users = 24 metabolic equivalent of task (MET)-hours/week vs. meanno

115 ount of total physical activity expressed in metabolic equivalent of task (MET)-hours/week.

116 <500, 500 to 1499, 1500 to 2999, and >=3000 metabolic equivalent of task (MET)-minutes per week.

117 o quantify the energy expended, expressed in metabolic equivalent of task (MET).

118 The volume (metabolic equivalent of task [MET] hours/week) and inten

119 LD risk was lower in physically active ( 600 metabolic equivalent of task [MET] min/week) versus inac

120 D risk was lower in physically active (>=600 metabolic equivalent of task [MET] min/week) versus inac

121 ch, and physical activity into quartiles (in metabolic equivalent of task [MET]-hours per week).

122 ed on self-reported LTPA levels: inactive (0 metabolic equivalent of task [MET]-min/wk), less than gu

123 Continuous MVPA (metabolic equivalent of task [MET]-minutes per week [MET

124 lthy Eating Index scores, physical activity (metabolic equivalent of task hours/week), and smoking pa

125 d to less physically active individuals (<95 metabolic equivalent of task hours/week).

126 and follow-up, examined continuously per 500 metabolic equivalent of task minutes per week (MET-min/w

127 exercise dosage of approximately 900 to 1200 metabolic equivalent of task minutes per week, especiall

128 fold change: -0.05; 95% CI: -0.06, -0.03 per metabolic equivalent of task-h/wk at 30-33 wk).

129 The exercise was quantified as the metabolic equivalent of task-h/wk before the presentatio

130 Total PA (metabolic equivalent of task-h/wk) was positively associ

131 Questionnaire-16, quantified in standardized metabolic equivalent of task-hours per week (MET-h/wk).

132 A low level of PA (<35 metabolic equivalent of task-hours/week) was associated

133 5), and total physical activity (<15 or >=15 metabolic equivalent of task-hours/week).

134 , 0.80), lower physical activity (MD = -1.41 metabolic equivalent of task-hours/week, 95% CI: -2.07,

135 nce interval) of CHD comparing >/=30 with <1 metabolic equivalent of task-hours/wk of physical activi

136 Active women (>/=30 metabolic equivalent of task-hours/wk) with body mass in

137 kg/m(2)) and inactive (physical activity <1 metabolic equivalent of task-hours/wk).

138 ion (535 vs 540 seconds; P = .62), estimated metabolic equivalent of tasks (METs; 11.6 vs 11.7; P = .

139 Self-reported physical activity (metabolic equivalent of tasks [METs] minutes per week),

140 rdiorespiratory fitness was measured as peak metabolic equivalents of task (METs) achieved on cardiac

141 ctivity in early pregnancy was quantified as metabolic equivalents of task (METs).

142 Younger age, female sex, higher metabolic equivalents of task achieved, and rapid recove

143 s between the volume of habitual exercise in metabolic equivalents of task hours/week and adverse out

144 ) methods based on energy expenditure, METs (metabolic equivalents of task), and oxygen consumption,

145 old or individuals who achieved at least 13 metabolic equivalents on ETT.

146 uspected CAD, an interpretable ECG, and >/=5 metabolic equivalents on the Duke Activity Status Index

147 G exercise test measures, exercise capacity (metabolic equivalents, or METs) and heart rate recovery

148 ons, achieved a lower workload (6.0 and 10.7 metabolic equivalents; P < 0.001), and had a greater lik

149 ise capacity (5.2 +/- 1.9 versus 6.5 +/- 2.2 metabolic equivalents; P = 0.001) and duration (9.6 +/-

150 Patients achieved 95+/-29% age-sex predicted metabolic equivalents; peak-stress MV gradient and right

151 differences, 0.38; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.92) or metabolic equivalents per week (3 studies; standardized

152 The PA(+) groups significantly increased the metabolic equivalents per week versus the PA(-) groups (

153 al activity (quintiles of age-adjusted total metabolic equivalents per week) with breast cancer risk

154 Physical activity was expressed as metabolic equivalents per week.

155 Metabolic equivalents remained similar between treatment

156 red with patients engaged in less than three metabolic equivalent task (MET) -hours per week of physi

157 On the basis of responses, we calculated metabolic equivalent task (MET) hours per week to quanti

158 6, 18, and 36 months after diagnosis, and a metabolic equivalent task (MET) score in hours per week

159 Risk of type 2 diabetes by quintile of metabolic equivalent task (MET) score, based on time spe

160 0 (95% CI: 0.56-0.87, I(2) = 58%) and per 20 metabolic equivalent task (MET)-hours/week increase of a

161 mpared with women who engaged in less than 3 metabolic equivalent task [MET] -hours per week of physi

162 leisure-time recreational physical activity (metabolic equivalent task [MET]-h/wk).

163 Physical activity was calculated as metabolic equivalent task hours per day (MET-h/d) spent

164 volume, the 3-year DFS was 76.5% with < 3.0 metabolic equivalent task hours per week (MET-h/wk) and

165 ed volume of physical activity (4.4 marginal metabolic equivalent task hours per week [mMET-h/wk]) ha

166 ear survival: 0.97 for >/=18 vs 0.89 for <18 metabolic equivalent task hours/week), while postdiagnos

167 D risk was highest in inactive women (</=1.7 metabolic equivalent task-h/week) who also reported >/=1

168 A meta-analysis estimated that each 15 metabolic equivalent task-hour per week increase in phys

169 , estrone sulfate levels in quintiles 1-5 of metabolic equivalent task-hours were 197, 209, 222, 214,

170 y physical activity domain, intensity, dose (metabolic-equivalent task [MET]-hours/week/year), and ch

171 tervals [CIs]) corresponding to quintiles of metabolic equivalent tasks (METs) for total physical act

172 higher mean PA (1290.6; 95% CI: 39.9, 2541.3 metabolic equivalent tasks . min/d; P = 0.043), and high

173 o 100), and exercise capacity was defined as metabolic equivalent tasks achieved at peak exercise.

174 ective in improving self-reported minutes of metabolic equivalent tasks per week for participants in

175 to climb >=2 flights of stairs, which is <4 metabolic equivalent tasks) if the results from the test

176 n patients with poor functional capacity (<4 metabolic equivalent tasks) undergoing high-risk surgery

177 of vegetables-fruits, and accumulating 540+ metabolic equivalent tasks-min/wk (equivalent to walking

178 quintiles of energy expenditure measured in metabolic equivalents (the MET score) had age-adjusted r

179 lude a nomogram to convert estimated maximal metabolic equivalents to actual peak V(O2) for patients

180 -therapy group (exercise tolerance, 5.0 MET [metabolic equivalent] vs. 3.9 MET; P=0.05); quality-of-l

181 (>=2 metabolic equivalents compared with <2 metabolic equivalents) was associated with lower total A

182 Peak metabolic equivalents were the most significant predicto

183 y time spent at least moderately active (>=3 metabolic equivalents) were estimated using a multisenso

184 .kg(-)1.min(-)1 difference was equal to ~0.5 metabolic equivalents, which is regarded as clinically m