MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161600438 · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00354

Association between neighborhood built environment and health-related fitness: a systematic review protocol

2021· review· en· W3161600438 on OpenAlexaff
Levi Frehlich, Chelsea D. Christie, Paul E. Ronksley, Tanvir Chowdhury Turin, Patricia K. Doyle–Baker, Gavin R. McCormack

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLCardiorespiratory fitnessPhysical fitnessBuilt environmentMEDLINEPsychologyGerontologySystematic reviewPsychological interventionAssociation (psychology)DocumentationPopulationApplied psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthComputer sciencePhysical therapyEngineeringPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to summarize the current literature on the association between the neighborhood built environment and components of health-related fitness. The findings may be useful for policy-makers and health professionals to inform the development of health-supportive neighborhood built environments. INTRODUCTION: There is accumulating evidence linking neighborhood built environments to health, including physical activity and chronic health conditions, yet little is known about the potential links between the built environment and health-related fitness. Although physical activity and health-related fitness are intimately linked, health-related fitness is thought to be a more proximate and stronger correlate of health. Understanding how the built environment influences health-related fitness will allow better health-promoting urban design and population-level interventions. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished evidence will be included if it has a quantitative component and the sample includes adults aged 18 years or older, with no physical disabilities or health issues that may affect health-related fitness. The exposure of interest will be objectively measured and self-reported neighborhood built characteristics. The outcome of interest will be objectively measured and self-reported components of health-related fitness (ie, morphological, muscular, motor, and cardiorespiratory fitness). METHODS: We will follow the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Databases used in the search will include MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Environment Complete, and Transport Research International Documentation with no date or language restrictions. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, and assess full-text studies against the inclusion criteria. Study quality will be assessed by two independent reviewers using the critical appraisal tools from JBI. A narrative approach will be used to synthesize the study findings; if data permit, a meta-analysis will be completed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020179807.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207