Step Count Targets Corresponding to New Physical Activity Guidelines for the Early Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: New physical activity guidelines recommend that children age 3–4 yr should accumulate at least 180 min of physical activity at any intensity spread throughout the day, including progression toward at least 60 min of energetic play by 5 yr of age. Step count targets corresponding to these recommendations will help practitioners and researchers monitor physical activity. METHODS: One hundred thirty-three preschoolers were instructed to wear accelerometers for seven consecutive days. Activity and step count data were recorded in 3-s epochs. Step count targets equivalent to physical activity recommendations were derived using prediction equations from regression analyses. Receiver operating curve analyses were conducted to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the derived thresholds as well as a range of other targets. RESULTS: The daily step count target derived for 180 min of physical activity of any intensity was 6013 +/- 88, whereas the target for 180 min of physical activity of any intensity including at least 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was 6191 +/- 103. The smallest discrepancy between days meeting physical activity guidelines and step count targets was found with a 6000-step-per-day target. Receiver operating curves confirmed a balanced sensitivity and specificity of this target. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our data, we suggest that a new step count target of 6000 steps per day should be used to determine whether 3- to 5-yr-old children are meeting physical activity recommendations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".