Influence of Physical Activity on Bone Strength in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A preponderance of evidence from systematic reviews supports the effectiveness of weight-bearing exercises on bone mass accrual, especially during the growing years. However, only one systematic review (limited to randomized controlled trials) examined the role of physical activity (PA) on bone strength. Thus, our systematic review extended the scope of the previous review by including all PA intervention and observational studies, including organized sports participation studies, with child or adolescent bone strength as the main outcome. We also sought to discern the skeletal elements (eg, mass, structure, density) that accompanied significant bone strength changes. Our electronic-database, forward, and reference searches yielded 14 intervention and 23 observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We used the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool to assess the quality of studies. Due to heterogeneity across studies, we adopted a narrative synthesis for our analysis and found that bone strength adaptations to PA were related to maturity level, sex, and study quality. Three (of five) weight-bearing PA intervention studies with a strong rating reported significantly greater gains in bone strength for the intervention group (3% to 4%) compared with only three significant (of nine) moderate intervention studies. Changes in bone structure (eg, bone cross-sectional area, cortical thickness, alone or in combination) rather than bone mass most often accompanied significant bone strength outcomes. Prepuberty and peripuberty may be the most opportune time for boys and girls to enhance bone strength through PA, although this finding is tempered by the few available studies in more mature groups. Despite the central role that muscle plays in bones' response to loading, few studies discerned the specific contribution of muscle function (or surrogates) to bone strength. Although not the focus of the current review, this seems an important consideration for future studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".