MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053974981 · doi:10.3810/psm.2011.05.1895

A Review of Resistance Exercise Training in Obese Adolescents

2011· review· en· W2053974981 on OpenAlexafffund
Angela S. Alberga, Ronald J. Sigal, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physician and Sportsmedicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOverweightGeneralizability theoryMedicineResistance trainingPhysical therapyObesityPsychological interventionLean body massPhysical strengthStrength trainingGerontologyPsychologyBody weightDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resistance training-also known as strength or weight training-has been well recognized by several national organizations as a safe and beneficial exercise modality for the health and well-being of children and adolescents. Resistance exercise improves muscular strength and can improve body composition (eg, increase lean body mass and decrease percent body fat) provided that a sufficient exercise stimulus is prescribed. Effects of resistance exercise training on body composition and metabolic profile are well established in obese adults, but warrant further investigation in obese youth. This article reviews the rationale for including a resistance training component with interventions geared toward overweight and obese adolescents by discussing the effects on various health measures. Shortcomings in published trials, including small, ethnic minority samples of short-duration and low-frequency exercise sessions primarily conducted in prepubertal youth (rather than postpubertal adolescents) limit the generalizability of the published literature on the effectiveness of resistance exercise in obese adolescents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Physician and SportsmedicineSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207