Daily associations between sleep and physical activity: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The day-to-day variations of sleep and physical activity are associated with various health outcomes in adults, and previous studies suggested a bidirectional association between these behaviors. The daily associations between sleep and physical activity have been examined in observational or interventional contexts. The primary goal of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize existing evidence about daily associations between sleep and physical activity outcomes at inter- and intra-individual level in adults. A systematic search of records in eight databases from inception to July 2019 identified 33 peer-reviewed empirical publications that examined daily sleep – physical activity association in adults. The qualitative and quantitative analyses of included studies did not support a bidirectional daily association between sleep outcomes and physical activity. Multilevel meta-analyses showed that three sleep parameters were associated with physical activity the following day: sleep quality, sleep efficiency, and wake after sleep onset. However, the associations were small, and varied in terms of direction and level of variability (e.g. inter- or intra-individual). Daytime physical activity was associated with lower total sleep time the following night at an inter-person level with a small effect size. From a clinical perspective, care providers should monitor the effects of better sleep promotion on physical activity behaviours in their patients. Future studies should examine sleep and physical activity during a longer period and perform additional sophisticated statistical analyses.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".