Validity of a Sedentary Behavior Guideline for Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sedentary behavior (SB) has been identified as an independent risk factor for many health outcomes such as metabolism, cardiovascular and obesity. The Canada research group provided SB guideline that is no more than 2 hours of SB per day. The SB guideline also indicated lower levels of SB are associated with higher level of fitness. Little is known about the validity of the SB guideline. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to examine the validity of Canada sedentary behavior guideline for Youth. METHODS: Data from NHANES National Youth Fitness Survey (NNYFS) 2012 were analyzed for this study. A total of 432 participants (221 males) aged 12-15 years completed the survey and a physical fitness examination. The NNYFS questionnaire included two questions regarding recreational SB; in the past 30 days how many hours of TV or videos were watched and how many hours of computer use. Recreation SB was categorized in two levels: (1) 2 hours and less per day; (2) more than 2 hours per day. Health related fitness consisted of body composition, muscular strength and cardiorespiratory fitness. Body composition was measured by BMI, muscular strength was measured by plank, and cardiorespiratory was measured by VO2max in NNYFS examination. To validate SB guideline, the general linear model was used to examine the association between the recreational SB and health related fitness after controlling the covariates (i.e., age, gender, and physical activity). RESULTS: After adjusting the covariates, recreational SB was related to plank, F (1, 427) = 4.14, p = .043. Recreational SB, however, was not related to VO2max and BMI, F (1, 427) = 1.62, p = .20 and F (1, 427) = 0.67, p = .413, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Recreational SB was only associated with muscular strength. The lack of validity for the SB guideline may be due to surrogate measure of SB used in the current study. Further validity research is needed using more accurate measures of SB.
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 | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".