MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040260757 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-125.4.274

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Examining the Effect of Exercise on Individuals With Intellectual Disability

2020· review· en· W3040260757 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisAnxietyIntellectual disabilityRandomized controlled trialClinical psychologyDepression (economics)PopulationRandom effects modelPsychologyMedicineInclusion (mineral)Physical therapyGerontologyPsychiatryInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the efficacy of exercise programs for individuals with intellectual disability (ID) based on experimental designs. Multiple databases were searched from inception up until March 2019. Randomized control trials were eligible for inclusion if they (a) included a population with ID; (b) used an exercise intervention; and (c) included performance, cardiovascular health, and/or psychological measures. All data were pooled using random effects models of standardized mean differences. The review included 18 studies which represented data from 799 individuals with ID. The largest effect was seen in relation to anxiety and depression symptoms (SMD = -3.07). This study represented the first comprehensive analysis on this topic area and illustrated that exercise can play an important therapeutic role for this population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it