The Benefits of Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents with Epilepsy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to review the literature about the effect of physical activity intervention in children and adolescents with epilepsy. Articles were searched in the central electronic databases of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycAriticles, and CINAHL for the following keywords: “epilepsy,” “seizure,” “physical activity,” “physical exercise,” “exercise therapy,” “sport,” using the Boolean operator “AND” and “OR.” The quality of the selected articles was evaluated by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Out of the 22 articles selected, 18 did not involve intervention or did not have pre- and postresults and therefore were excluded from the study. The remaining four were studies from Canada and Korea which comprised two long-period interventions and were included in the analysis. Both programs demonstrated a positive effect of physical activity on variables related to psychological well-being and cognitive function. All the four articles demonstrated a lower score of quality. In conclusion, reviewed studies suggest that physical exercise program induces some benefits in children and adolescents with epilepsy. However, the noncontrolled trials and the varied analyses (quantitative vs. qualitative) make it difficult to establish a consensus about benefits of physical activity in epilepsy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".