MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285042213 · doi:10.1080/01441647.2022.2099999

Associations between Light Rail Transit and physical activity: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4285042213 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransport Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of OttawaPublic Health Agency of CanadaMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCalifornia HIV/AIDS Research Program
KeywordsSystematic reviewScopusChecklistMEDLINEData extractionPopulationDocumentationApplied psychologyPsychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investment in public transport is on the rise as many cities around the world aim to reduce their carbon footprint and improve population health. One such investment is building or extending Light Rail Transit (LRT). Focusing on studies in the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, this paper reports the results of a systematic review on the associations between LRT and physical activity. This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Twenty studies were identified through a search of five bibliographic databases (Web of Science, Transport Research International Documentation (TRID), Scopus, Medline, and SPORTDiscus) (n=5,866) and a systematic Google search (n=446). At least two reviewers conducted the search and reviewed the titles and abstract of each identified article to include in the review. Standardized data extraction forms were used to document information from each selected article. The forms included a risk of bias assessment tool. Two reviewers completed the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Our findings show that moderate certainty of evidence exists for the relationship between LRT and walking behaviour. Here, all studies, most of which were natural experiments (n = 6), found a positive association between LRT and walking behaviour, with LRT leading to an increase of 7–40% in walking in most studies (n = 7 out of 8). A positive relationship between LRT and moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) and between LRT and cycling was also often identified; however, results were inconsistent, and certainty of evidence is low for MPVA, and very low for cycling. Further, some studies (n = 3) identify differences in physical activity participation at different LRT stations, suggesting that station design, surrounding land use, and built environment play important roles in promoting physical activity around LRT. Given this, practitioners can be relatively confident that LRT investments will result in increased walking behaviour.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.271 · 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