Effects of the Girls on the Move randomized trial on adiposity and aerobic performance (secondary outcomes) in low‐income adolescent girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited, mixed evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of physical activity interventions on adiposity and aerobic performance in adolescent underrepresented populations. OBJECTIVE: To examine effects of Girls on the Move on body mass index z-scores (BMI-z), percent (%) body fat, and aerobic performance in fifth- to eighth-grade underrepresented girls. METHODS: A group randomized trial, involving 12 intervention and 12 control schools in low-income areas, was conducted. Participants (n = 1519) were low-active girls. The 17-week intervention included (a) a physical activity club, (b) two motivational interviewing sessions, and (c) one Internet-based session. BMI-z was determined from measured height and weight; % body fat was assessed using bioelectric impedance. Aerobic performance was assessed using a shuttle run. Demographics, physical activity (accelerometer), and pubertal development were assessed. Linear mixed models, adjusting for baseline, were used to examine group differences in postintervention. RESULTS: = -0.39 vs -0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Although the intervention positively impacted % body fat and aerobic performance in underrepresented girls, more research is necessary to determine optimal implementation for yielding greater effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".