MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109916242 · doi:10.1186/s12966-020-01037-z

2020 WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour for children and adolescents aged 5–17 years: summary of the evidence

2020· review· en· W3109916242 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean‐Philippe Chaput, Juana Willumsen, Fiona Bull, Roger Chou, Ulf Ekelund, Joseph Firth, Russell Jago, Francisco B. Ortega, Peter T. Katzmarzyk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration WestNorges ForskningsrådPublic Health AgencyUniversity of BristolNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadCHEO Research InstituteUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation TrustUK Research and InnovationUniversidad de GranadaPublic Health Agency of CanadaEuropean Regional Development FundWorld Health Organization
KeywordsSystematic reviewPhysical activityGuidelineLimitingMedicineScreen timeGrading (engineering)GerontologyPsychologyMEDLINEPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) released in 2020 updated global guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour for children, adolescents, adults, older adults and sub-populations such as pregnant and postpartum women and those living with chronic conditions or disabilities. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence on the associations between physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and health-related outcomes used to inform the 2020 WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour for children and adolescents aged 5-17 years. METHODS: The update of the WHO guideline recommendations for children and adolescents utilized and systematically updated the evidence syntheses on physical activity and sedentary behaviour conducted for the 2016 Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth, the 2019 Australian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Young People (5-17 years), and the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, Second Edition. Systematic reviews published from 2017 up to July 2019 that addressed the key questions were identified, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rate the certainty of the evidence for the entire body of evidence. RESULTS: The updated literature search yielded 21 relevant systematic reviews. The evidence base reviewed (i.e., existing and new systematic reviews) provided evidence that greater amounts and higher intensities of physical activity as well as different types of physical activity (i.e., aerobic and muscle and bone strengthening activities) are associated with improved health outcomes (primarily intermediate outcomes). There was sufficient evidence to support recommendations on limiting sedentary behaviours, which was not addressed in the 2010 WHO guidelines. However, there is still insufficient evidence available to fully describe the dose-response relationships between physical activity or sedentary behaviour and health outcomes, and whether the associations vary by type or domain of physical activity or sedentary behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the identified research gaps will better inform guideline recommendations in children and adolescents, and future work should aim to prioritize these areas of research. In the meantime, investment and leadership is needed to scale up known effective policies and programs aimed at increasing activity in children and adolescents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.011
Bibliometrics0.0150.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,216
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical ActivitySame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207