Sedentary Time and Screen-Based Sedentary Behaviors of Children With a Chronic Disease
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
The objectives of this study were to (i) assess sedentary time and prevalence of screen-based sedentary behaviors of children with a chronic disease and (ii) compare sedentary time and prevalence of screen-based sedentary behaviors to age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Sixty-five children (aged 6-18 years) with a chronic disease participated: survivors of a brain tumor, hemophilia, type 1 diabetes mellitus, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, cystic fibrosis, and Crohn's disease. Twenty-nine of these participants were compared with age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Sedentary time was measured objectively by an ActiGraph GT1M or GT3× accelerometer worn for 7 consecutive days and defined as less than 100 counts per min. A questionnaire was used to assess screen-based sedentary behaviors. Children with a chronic disease engaged in an average of 10.2 ± 1.4 hr of sedentary time per day, which comprised 76.5 ± 7.1% of average daily monitoring time. There were no differences between children with a chronic disease and controls in sedentary time (adjusted for wear time, p = .06) or in the prevalence of TV watching, and computer or video game usage for varying durations (p = .78, p = .39 and, p = .32 respectively). Children with a chronic disease, though relatively healthy, accumulate high levels of sedentary time, similar to those of their healthy peers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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