Prevalence and patterns of physical activity among school aged adolescents in Pakistan: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Less than one fifth of Pakistani adolescents, aged 13–15, years achieve recommended activity levels. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine a pooled estimate of the prevalence of PA, and to systematically evaluate the literature available on PA among adolescents in Pakistan. A systemic search of databases was conducted. In addition, hand search of references of all the included relevant publications was performed. Random effects meta-analysis was used to get weighted prevalence of PA among adolescents. Quality of undertaken studies was assessed using New-Castle Ottawa Scale. After removing duplicates, reviewing titles and abstracts and screening full texts, 15 articles were included for analysis. All studies were conducted in school setting, with a total sample size of 10,651. Weighted pooled prevalence of PA among adolescents was 36.0% with high heterogeneity (99.28%). Most of the studies met study quality assessment criteria except for comparability of subjects in different outcome groups and assessment of outcome. Prevalence of PA among adolescents is low in Pakistan. Formal strategies are needed for promoting PA among adolescents for their improved health and for reducing future burden of NCDs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".