A comparison of indirect versus direct measures for assessing physical activity in the pediatric population: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of physical activity (PA) in children and adolescents is required to establish PA levels, monitor changes and inform public healthy policy. This study systematically reviews the literature to determine the extent of agreement between indirect (e.g., questionnaire) and direct (e.g., accelerometry) assessments of PA in pediatric populations (<or=19 years). METHODS: Literature was identified through searching electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE), websites of relevant organizations and conference abstracts until April 2007. Studies were included if they collected indirect and direct measures of PA in pediatric populations and were reported in English. Quality of included studies was appraised using a modified Downs and Black tool. RESULTS: A total of 83 studies were included; 24 describing comparable data and 59 including a correlation analysis. The majority of correlations reported between indirect and direct measures were low-to-moderate (range: -0.56 to 0.89). Overall, 72% of the indirect measures overestimated the directly measured values. Combined gender, as well as male- and female-only data comparing indirect measures to accelerometery, heart rate monitoring or direct observation, all reported an overestimation by indirect method. A similar trend was observed in combined gender data comparing indirect measures with doubly labelled water; however, the opposite trend was observed in the male- and female-only data with a slight underestimation by indirect measure. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial discrepancies and moderate correlations between indirect methods and direct measures of assessing PA in pediatric populations are of concern, especially when trying to establish relationships with health outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".