Gender Differences in Response to a Physical Activity Intervention in Overweight and Obese Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the effects of gender on response to a behavioral intervention that rewarded increases in physical activity (PA) with increases in access to TV viewing. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a clinical trial that randomized 30 overweight or obese, 8- to 12-year-old children to an intervention (8 boys, 6 girls) or control (7 boys, 9 girls) group. Participants wore accelerometers every day for 8 weeks and attended biweekly meetings to download the activity monitors. For the intervention group, accumulating 400 counts of PA on accelerometers earned 1 hour of TV time, which was controlled by a Token TV electronic device. Controls wore activity monitors but had free access to TV. RESULTS: Compared with girls, boys in the intervention group exhibited greater increases in overall daily PA counts (110% versus 40%, P < .05) and minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; +18.1 versus +2.7, P < .05). Neither boys nor girls in the control group showed significant changes in overall PA or intensity of PA. CONCLUSION: Wearing an accelerometer in combination with rewarding PA with TV might be a more effective intervention for increasing overall PA and time spent in MVPA in overweight and obese boys than it is for overweight or obese girls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".