Association between neighborhood built environment and health-related fitness: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 INCLUSION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished evidence will be included if it has a quantitative component and the sample includes adults aged 18 years or older, with no physical disabilities or health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 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 | 0.071 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.007 |
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".