MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184805073 · doi:10.1007/s40489-021-00262-x

Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder Spent 30 Min Less Daily Time in Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity than Typically Developing Peers: a Meta-Analysis of Cross-sectional Data

2021· article· en· W3184805073 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahdi Rostami Haji Abadi, Yuwen Zheng, Tiffany Wharton, Colleen Anne Dell, Hassanali Vatanparast, James D. Johnston, Saija Kontulainen

Bibliographic record

VenueReview Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderOddsPhysical activityMeta-analysisTypically developingPsychological interventionOdds ratioAutismMedicinePhysical therapyCross-sectional studyPsychologyClinical psychologyLogistic regressionPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It remains unclear if participation in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) differs between children with ASD and typically developing children (TDC). We compared daily MVPA, time spent in MVPA during physical education (PE) and recess, and odds of not meeting MVPA recommendation (60 min/day) between children with ASD and TDC. Nine studies reporting accelerometer-measured MVPA were included in the meta-analyses. MVPA was 30 min lower/day, 12% and 8% lower during PE and recess, respectively, in children with ASD, and they had 4 times higher odds of not meeting MVPA recommendation when compared to TDC. Children with ASD engage in daily MVPA less than TDC and below the guidelines. Tailored interventions to increase MVPA in children with ASD are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.033
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview Journal of Autism and Developmental DisordersSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207