Physical activity for obese individuals: a systematic review of effects on chronic disease risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this review was to determine the effectiveness of physical activity in improving chronic disease risk factors in obese individuals. A systematic review was conducted to identify randomized physical activity intervention studies reporting changes in risk factors among obese individuals published prior to March 2010. Studies included in the review were randomized trials of at least 10 weeks in duration, with a sample mean body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m(2) at baseline, and reporting a relevant risk factor (blood pressure, blood lipids, glucose/insulin or C-reactive protein). Forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Overall, physical activity had no more than a modest effect on chronic disease risk factors in obese individuals. There was great heterogeneity in responses of risk factors across studies. In many studies it was difficult to determine the effect of physical activity, independent of changes in body mass consequent to the intervention. Obese individuals should be encouraged to undertake physical activity following general recommendations for weight loss and health. The degree to which physical activity is effective at lowering risk factor levels among high-risk obese individuals is not known.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".