Associations Between Meeting the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines and Cardiometabolic Risk in Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The authors aimed to examine the association between meeting the integrative movement behavior guidelines (physical activity, screen viewing, and sleep) and cardiometabolic risk (CMR) factors in young children. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, physical activity, screen viewing, and sleep were assessed using parent-reported data. The 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for the Early Years (0-4 y) were defined as 180 minutes of physical activity/day (of which ≥60 min should be moderate-to-vigorous intensity), ≤1 hour of screen viewing/day, and 10 to 13 hours of sleep/night. Waist circumference, glucose, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and systolic blood pressure were measured in a clinical setting by trained staff. A total CMR score and individual CMR factors served as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 767 participants (3-4 y), 26.4% met none of the guideline's recommendations, whereas 41.3%, 33.1%, and 10.6% of the sample met 1, 2, or all 3 recommendations, respectively. The number of recommendations met was not associated with the total CMR score or individual CMR factors (P > .05), with the exceptions of high-density lipoprotein (odds ratio = 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 2.33; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Meeting the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines in early childhood was not associated with overall CMR, but was associated with favorable cholesterol outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".