Impact of physical activity and fitness in class <scp>II</scp> and <scp>III</scp> obese individuals: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review was to appraise current knowledge on the impact of physical activity (PA) and physical fitness (PF) on the health of class II and III obese subjects and bariatric surgery (BS) patients. All original studies were searched using four databases (Medline®, Scopus®, CINAHL and Sportdiscus). Two independent investigators selected studies assessing the impact of PA or PF on specific health outcomes (anthropometric parameters, body composition, cardiometabolic risk factors, PF, wellness) in adults with a body mass index ≥35 kg m(-2) or in BS patients. Conclusions were drawn based on a rating system of evidence. From 3,170 papers identified, 40 papers met the inclusion criteria. The vast majority of studies were recently carried out with a predominance of women. Less than one-third of these studies were experimental and only three of them were of high quality. Each study reported at least one beneficial effect of PA or PF. However, a lack of high-quality studies and heterogeneity in designs prevented us from finding high levels of evidence. In conclusion, although results support the importance of PA and PF to improve the health of this population, higher-quality trials are required to strengthen evidence-based recommendations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".