ArticleScientific reports2025
Sex differences in the association of physical activity patterns with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a prospective cohort study from NHANES 2007-2018.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex-specific effects of exercise on motor coordination and extended basal ganglia physiology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Sex Differences in the Impact of Physical Activity Across the Spectrum of Cardiovascular Disease.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- Association of accelerometer-measured physical activity and the risk of incident cardiovascular diseases within the AHA cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome 0-4 framework: a prospective cohort of the UK Biobank.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Sex differences in chemotherapy completion, toxicities, and survival in colon cancer: an analysis of 2201 patients from CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance).Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physical activity is widely promoted to reduce mortality risks from all-cause and cardiovascular diseases, yet current guidelines rarely address sex-specific differences or distinguish between occupational (OPA) and non-occupational PA (Non-OPA). This study leverages NHANES 2007-2018 data to evaluate sex differences in mortality benefits from OPA and Non-OPA, with a specific focus on implications for women's health. Participants were categorized into three activity levels: below (< 150 min/week), at (150-300 min/week), and above (> 300 min/week) the recommended guidelines. Multivariable Cox models yielded sex-specific hazard ratios (HRs), with nonlinear dose-response relationships explored through subgroup analyses by age and BMI. Our results reveal that females derive greater survival benefits than males at equivalent PA levels, particularly from Non-OPA, which supporting the "physical activity paradox". For instance, Non-OPA showed stronger protective effects, with females achieving significant risk reductions at lower activity volumes than males. Notably, older adults (≥ 65 years) and individuals with obesity experienced enhanced benefits from Non-OPA. These findings underscore the need for sex-specific PA guidelines and highlight the importance of promoting Non-OPA to maximize health benefits across diverse populations, with specific implications for women's health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.