MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239806134 · doi:10.1123/pes.2015-0035

Childhood Obesity, Physical Activity, and Exercise

2015· letter· en· W4239806134 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Exercise Science · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOverweightAerobic exerciseBody mass indexPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialPercentileObesityBody fat percentageResistance trainingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Little evidence exists on which exercise modality is optimal for obese adolescents. Objective: To determine the effects of aerobic training, resistance training, and combined training on percentage body fat in overweight and obese adolescents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, parallel-group clinical trial at community-based exercise facilities in Ottawa (Ontario) and Gatineau (Quebec), Canada, among previously inactive postpubertal adolescents aged 14-18 years (Tanner stage IV or V) with body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for age and sex or at or above the 85th percentile plus an additional diabetes mellitus or cardiovascular risk factor. Interventions: After a 4-week run-in period, 304 participants were randomized to the following 4 groups for 22 weeks: aerobic training ( n = 75), resistance training ( n = 78), combined aerobic and resistance training ( n = 75), or nonexercising control ( n = 76). All participants received dietary counseling, with a daily energy deficit of 250 kcal. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was percentage body fat measured by magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and 6 months. We hypothesized that aerobic training and resistance training would each yield greater decreases than the control and that combined training would cause greater decreases than aerobic or resistance training alone. Results: Decreases in percentage body fat were −0.3 (95% CI, −0.9 to 0.3) in the control group, −1.1 (95% CI, −1.7 to −0.5) in the aerobic training group ( p = .06 vs. controls), and −1.6 (95% CI, −2.2 to −1.0) in the resistance training group ( p = .002 vs controls). The −1.4 (95% CI, −2.0 to −0.8) decrease in the combined training group did not differ significantly from that in the aerobic or resistance training group. Waist circumference changes were −0.2 (95% CI, −1.7 to 1.2) cm in the control group, −3.0 (95% CI, −4.4 to −1.6) cm in the aerobic group ( p = .006 vs controls), −2.2 (95% CI −3.7 to −0.8) cm in the resistance training group ( p = .048 vs controls), and −4.1 (95% CI, −5.5 to −2.7) cm in the combined training group. In per-protocol analyses (> 70% adherence), the combined training group had greater changes in percentage body fat (-2.4, 95% CI, −3.2 to −1.6) vs the aerobic group (-1.2; 95% CI, −2.0 to −0.5; p = .04 vs the combined group) but not the resistance group (-1.6; 95% CI, −2.5 to −0.8). Conclusions and Relevance: Aerobic, resistance, and combined training reduced total body fat and waist circumference in obese adolescents. In more adherent participants, combined training may cause greater decreases than aerobic or resistance training alone.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.259 · 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