Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review is an update examining the relationships between objectively and subjectively measured sedentary behaviour and health indicators in children and youth aged 5-17 years. EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Medline were searched in December 2014, and date limits were imposed (≥February 2010). Included studies were peer-reviewed and met the a priori-determined population (apparently healthy children and youth, mean age: 5-17 years), intervention (durations, patterns, and types of sedentary behaviours), comparator (various durations, patterns, and types of sedentary behaviours), and outcome (critical: body composition, metabolic syndrome/cardiovascular disease risk factors, behavioural conduct/pro-social behaviour, academic achievement; important: fitness, self-esteem) study criteria. Quality of evidence by outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Due to heterogeneity, a narrative analysis was conducted. A total of 235 studies (194 unique samples) were included representing 1 657 064 unique participants from 71 different countries. Higher durations/frequencies of screen time and television (TV) viewing were associated with unfavourable body composition. Higher duration/frequency of TV viewing was also associated with higher clustered cardiometabolic risk scores. Higher durations of TV viewing and video game use were associated with unfavourable behavioural conduct/pro-social behaviour. Higher durations of reading and doing homework were associated with higher academic achievement. Higher duration of screen time was associated with lower fitness. Higher durations of screen time and computer use were associated with lower self-esteem. Evidence ranged from "very low" to "moderate" quality. Higher quality studies using reliable and valid sedentary behaviour measures should confirm this largely observational evidence.
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 | 0.014 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".