A Standardised Core Outcome Set for Measurement and Reporting Sedentary Behaviour Interventional Research: The CROSBI Consensus Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heterogeneity of descriptors and outcomes measured and reported in sedentary behaviour (SB) research hinder the meta-analysis of data and accumulation of evidence. The objective of the Core Research Outcomes for Sedentary Behaviour Interventions (CROSBI) consensus study was to identify and validate, a core outcome set (COS) to report (what, how, when to measure) in interventional sedentary behaviour studies. Outcomes, extracted from a systematic literature review, were categorized into domains and data items (COS v0.0). International experts (n = 5) provided feedback and identified additional items, which were incorporated into COS v0.1. A two round online Delphi survey was conducted to seek consensus from a wider stakeholder group and outcomes that achieved consensus in the second round COS (v0.2), were ratified by the expert panel. The final COS (v1.0) contains 53 data items across 12 domains, relating to demographics, device details, wear-time criteria, wear-time measures, posture-related measures, sedentary breaks, sedentary bouts and physical activity. Notably, results indicate that sedentary behaviour outcomes should be measured by devices that include an inclinometry or postural function. The proposed standardised COS is available openly to enhance the accumulation of pooled evidence in future sedentary behaviour intervention research and practice.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Reporting · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Reporting · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.143 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".