Sedentary behaviour and health in adults: an overview of systematic reviews
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this overview of systematic reviews was to determine the relationship between different types and patterns of sedentary behaviour and selected health outcomes in adults and older adults. Five electronic databases were last searched in May, 2019, with a 10-year search limit. Included reviews met the a priori population (community-dwelling adults aged 18 years and older), intervention/exposure/comparator (various types and/or patterns of sedentary behaviour), and outcomes criteria. Eighteen systematic reviews were included in the evidence synthesis. High levels of sedentary behaviour are unfavourably associated with cognitive function, depression, function and disability, physical activity levels, and physical health-related quality of life in adults. Reducing or breaking up sedentary behaviour may benefit body composition and markers of cardiometabolic risk. Total sedentary behaviour and TV viewing were most consistently associated with unfavourable health outcomes, while computer and Internet use may be favourably associated with cognitive function for older adults. The quality of evidence within individual reviews (as assessed by review authors) varied from low to high, while the certainty of evidence was low to very low. These findings have important public health implications, suggesting that adults should avoid high levels of sedentary behaviour and break-up periods of prolonged sitting. (PROSPERO registration nos.: CRD42019123121 and CRD42019127157.) Novelty High levels of sedentary behaviour are unfavourably associated with important health outcomes in adults. Reducing or breaking up sedentary behaviour may benefit body composition and markers of cardiometabolic risk. Computer and Internet use may be favourably associated with cognitive function in older adults.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it