The association between cardiorespiratory fitness and the incidence of common mental health disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity is associated with a lower incidence of common mental health disorder, but less is known about the impact of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). METHODS: In this review, we systematically evaluated the relationship between CRF and the incidence of common mental health disorders in prospective cohort studies. We systematically searched six major electronic databases from inception to 23rd of May 2019. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: = 87.20) CRF are associated with a 47% and 23% greater risk of a common mental health disorders respectively, compared with high CRF. We found evidence to suggest a dose-response relationship between CRF and the risk of common mental health disorders. LIMITATIONS: We were only able to identify a small number of eligible studies from our search and heterogeneity was substantial in the subsequent meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that there is a longitudinal association between CRF levels and the risk of a common mental health disorder. CRF levels could be useful for identifying and preventing common mental health disorders at a population-level.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".