Couch potatoes to jumping beans: A pilot study of the effect of active video games on physical activity in children
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The primary objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the effect of active video games on children's physical activity levels.Twenty children (mean +/- SD age = 12 +/- 1.5 years; 40% female) were randomised to receive either an active video game upgrade package or to a control group (no intervention). Effects on physical activity over the 12-week intervention period were measured using objective (Actigraph accelerometer) and subjective (Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children [PAQ-C]) measures. An activity log was used to estimate time spent playing active and non-active video games.Children in the intervention group spent less mean time over the total 12-week intervention period playing all video games compared to those in the control group (54 versus 98 minutes/day [difference = -44 minutes/day, 95% CI [-92, 2]], p = 0.06). Average time spent in all physical activities measured with an accelerometer was higher in the active video game intervention group compared to the control group (difference at 6 weeks = 194 counts/min, p = 0.04, and at 12 weeks = 48 counts/min, p = 0.06).This preliminary study suggests that playing active video games on a regular basis may have positive effects on children's overall physical activity levels. Further research is needed to confirm if playing these games over a longer period of time could also have positive effects on children's body weight and body mass index. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN012606000018516.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it