The study of Iranian children and adolescents’ physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives This systematic and meta-analysis review was conducted to determine the status of Iranian children and adolescents’ physical activity. Content All the related articles which were published in the major databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Magiran, SID from the beginning of 2010 to the end of 2019, were reviewed by researchers. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was also used to evaluate the quality of articles. Moreover, I 2 index and chi-square were used to assess the heterogeneity between the results. Summary 490 articles were found as a result of the search in the selected international and local databases, where finally, 10 articles were included into the meta-analysis after the elimination of the duplicated articles and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results indicated that 29.5% of the girls were considered active according to WHO criteria (16.1–42.8: 95% CI) and also 20.5% of the boys (7.3–33.7: 95% CI). Outlook Overall, this study’s findings showed that a large percentage of Iranian children and adolescents do not achieve the level of physical activity recommended by the World Health Organization. This can lead to undesirable consequences for this group of population that is considered as the human capital of any country; consequently, it seems necessary to take basic measures at the micro and macro levels in order to reduce such problems in the society.
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 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".