Associations between meeting 24-hour movement guidelines and health in the early years: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review examined the compliance with the 24-h movement guidelines, and investigated its associations with health indicators for healthy children under 5 years of age. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus were searched for peer-reviewed studies and the last search was conducted on 27 October 2020. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scales were used to assess the quality of included studies. Eighteen articles including 8,943 participants from 11 countries were included. On average around 13% of the children met all three guidelines. Meta-analyses of the associations between meeting all three guidelines and adiposity yielded no significant results (r = – 0.03; 95% CI = – 0.12, 0.06; I2 = 51%; P = 0.48). Meeting more guidelines was associated with better psychosocial health (3/4 studies). Associations between meeting individual or combined guidelines and motor development yielded mixed results (2/2 studies), while no associations between meeting guidelines and cognitive development were observed (1 study). Compliance with all three guidelines was low. Further evidence is required to understand the associations between meeting the 24-h movement guidelines and health outcomes. Nevertheless, there was evidence of a dose-response relationship between meeting the guidelines and better psychosocial health in the early years.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".