Association between 9-minute walk/run test and obesity among children and adolescents: evidence for criterion-referenced cut-points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Criterion-referenced cut-points for field-based aerobic fitness for children and adolescents are lacking. This study aimed to determine the associations between aerobic fitness and obesity to propose criterion-referenced cut-points for boys and girls (6-17 years). METHODS: A total of 61,465 children and adolescents aged 11.2 ± 2.0 years were recruited from 27 sites (all 26 states and Federal District) across Brazil. Aerobic fitness was assessed using 9-min walk/run test reported as distance attained during the test. Body mass index was calculated from measured height and weight and was used to identify obesity. RESULTS: The distance covered in the 9-min walk/run test (area under curve > 0.65) had satisfactory predictive ability for obesity. Sensitivity and specificity were moderate (>60%) to strong (>70%) for all age- and sex-specific cut-points. For boys, the optimal physical performance cut-points were, approximately, 1,200 m from 6 to 8 years, 1,300 m from 9 to 11 years, 1,380 m from 12 to 14 years, 1,520 m from 15 to 17 years. For girls, the best cut-points were, approximately, 1,070 m from 6 to 8 years, 1,160 m from 9 to 11 years and 1,200 m from 12 to 17 years. CONCLUSIONS: The 9-min walk/run test had satisfactory predictive ability for obesity in children and adolescents. The physical fitness cut-points proposed in the present study varied according to age and sex and could be useful and practical tools to identify low levels of physical fitness in children and adolescents in Brazil.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".