Physical Activity and Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This review aims to give an overview of available published evidence concerning the association between physical activity and asthma in children, adolescents and adults. METHODS: We included all original articles in which both physical activity and asthma were assessed in case-control, cross-sectional or longitudinal (cohort) studies. Excluded were studies concerning physical fitness, studies in athletes, therapeutic or rehabilitation intervention studies such as physical training or exercise in asthma patients. Methodological quality of the included articles was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: A literature search was performed until June 2011 and resulted in 6,951 publications derived from PubMed and 1,978 publications from EMBASE. In total, 39 studies met the inclusion criteria: 5 longitudinal studies (total number of subjects n = 85,117) with physical activity at baseline as exposure, and asthma incidence as outcome. Thirty-four cross-sectional studies (n = 661,222) were included. Pooling of the longitudinal studies showed that subjects with higher physical activity levels had lower incidence of asthma (odds ratio 0.88 (95% CI: 0.77-1.01)). When restricting pooling to the 4 prospective studies with moderate to good study quality (defined as NOS≥5) the pooled odds ratio only changed slightly (0.87 (95% CI: 0.77-0.99)). In the cross-sectional studies, due to large clinical variability and heterogeneity, further statistical analysis was not possible. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence indicates that physical activity is a possible protective factor against asthma development. The heterogeneity suggests that possible relevant effects remain hidden in critical age periods, sex differences, or extremes of levels of physical activity (e.g. sedentary). Future longitudinal studies should address these issues.
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 | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".