MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096237663 · doi:10.1139/h2012-070

Systematic review of physical activity and health in the early years (aged 0–4 years)

2012· review· en· W2096237663 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brian W. Timmons, Allana G. LeBlanc, Valerie Carson, Sarah Connor Gorber, Carrie Dillman, Ian Janssen, Michelle E. Kho, John C. Spence, Jodie A. Stearns, Mark S. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaPublic Health Agency of CanadaQueen's UniversityAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialGross motor skillCognitionMotor skillMedicineGerontologyHealth indicatorPhysical activityChild developmentCognitive developmentGrading (engineering)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyEnvironmental healthPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The early years represent a critical period for promoting physical activity. However, the amount of physical activity needed for healthy growth and development is not clear. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, we aimed to present the best available evidence to determine the relationship between physical activity and measures of adiposity, bone and skeletal health, motor skill development, psychosocial health, cognitive development, and cardiometabolic health indicators in infants (1 month - 1 year), toddlers (1.1-3.0 years), and preschoolers (3.1-4.9 years). Online databases, personal libraries, and government documents were searched for relevant studies. Twenty-two articles, representing 18 unique studies and 12 742 enrolled participants, met inclusion criteria. The health indicators of interest were adiposity (n = 11), bone and skeletal health (n = 2), motor development (n = 4), psychosocial health (n = 3), cognitive development (n = 1), and cardiometabolic health indicators (n = 3); these indicators were pre-specified by an expert panel. Five unique studies involved infants, 2 involved toddlers, and 11 involved preschoolers. In infants, there was low- to moderate-quality evidence to suggest that increased or higher physical activity was positively associated with improved measures of adiposity, motor skill development, and cognitive development. In toddlers, there was moderate-quality evidence to suggest that increased or higher physical activity was positively associated with bone and skeletal health. In preschoolers, there was low- to high-quality evidence on the relationship between increased or higher physical activity and improved measures of adiposity, motor skill development, psychosocial health, and cardiometabolic health indicators. There was no serious inconsistency in any of the studies reviewed. This evidence can help to inform public health guidelines. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42011001243).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations635
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207