Pilot aerobic exercise intervention for youth at‐risk for serious mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was conducted as a pilot exercise intervention in youth at-risk for serious mental illness (SMI). The objectives were to examine the feasibility of an exercise intervention and to determine what improvement was observed, following participation in a moderate- to high-intensity aerobic exercise programme. METHODS: Forty-four male and female youth at-risk for SMI were recruited. Participants completed clinical, lifestyle and fitness assessments prior to and following a 16-week moderate- to high-intensity aerobic exercise intervention. Sixty-minute exercise sessions were held three times per week. RESULTS: Forty-one participants completed the entire intervention and assessments; thus, the retention rate was 93.2%. Exercise participants achieved a mean of 98.3 (standard deviation (SD) 26.1) minutes/week of high-intensity and a mean of 32.8 (SD 8.7) minutes/week of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise over the course of 16 weeks. Improvements in aerobic fitness and body composition as well as reductions in anxiety and depression were observed after the exercise intervention. CONCLUSION: Aerobic exercise is a feasible and sound intervention strategy in youth at-risk for SMI. Further research is required to expand upon these initial findings and develop knowledge of the mechanisms, optimum dose and factors that influence the efficacy of exercise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".