MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321571131 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2014-110119

Physical activity may improve measures of cognition in children

2015· letter· en· W2321571131 on OpenAlexaff
Véronique Labelle

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des Laurentides
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicinePhysical activityCognitionChild healthMotor functionPediatricsInternal medicinePhysical therapyPsychiatryPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on : Hillman CH, Pontifex MB, Castelli DM, et al. Effects of the FITKids randomized controlled trial on executive control and brain function. Pediatrics 2014;134:e1063–7.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Physical inactivity has been associated with numerous chronic diseases, which in turn can have an impact on quality of life and public health issues. Many studies show positive effects of regular physical activity on mood1 and some aspects of cognitive functioning,2 especially in older adults. However, few studies have been conducted in children and teenagers. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) examines the behavioural and neurolectric outcomes of a fitness programme in children aged between 7 and 9 years. Of the 475 children screened, 221 of them were randomly assigned to either the physical activity (PA) group or the wait-list (WL) control group. The PA group participated in a daily 2 h session of cardiovascular and motor-skills activities after school. They also attended educational sessions (eg, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPediatrics%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1542%252Fpeds.2013-3219%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F25266425%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=pediatrics&resid=134/4/e1063&atom=%2Febmed%2F20%2F4%2F143.atom

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207