Predictive validity of objective measures of physical fitness for the new onset of mental disorders in adolescents and young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To systematically review evidence that objectively assessed level of physical fitness is associated with future risk of adverse mental health outcomes during the peak age range for onset of adult mental disorders. METHODS: Searches of Electronic databases (EBSCOhost, SPORTDISCUS, EMBASE, MedLINE, Cochrane database, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Dissertation Abstracts), supplemented by hand searches of journals, conference proceedings and citations. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to pool the intervention effects. RESULTS: Eight studies of adolescents and young adults were included in the qualitative review and six studies derived from four independent cohorts were included in the statistical analyses. Most publications reported on large samples (including >1 million), but male conscripts were over-represented in the study cohorts; quality of included studies was modest, and heterogeneity was significant. Meta-analytic estimates were conducted for different adverse mental health outcomes, but all showed an inverse association between fitness and incidence of mental disorders or suicidality. Overall, higher level of physical fitness was associated with lower rates of onset of mental health problems (odds ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence intervals: 0.54, 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: All eligible studies were undertaken since 2010, suggesting this is an emerging but unfinished field of research. The study design and methodological limitations indicate that the reported results should be treated with caution. However, if the meta-analytic findings are reliably replicated for new cohorts of males and females, they have implications for research into the prevention of non-communicable diseases, as our review suggests that interventions should target physical and mental health in equal measure.
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 | 0.025 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".