Physical Activity and Body Image Perception in Adolescents: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescence represents a vulnerable phase of life for psychological health. The practice of physical activity (PA) appears to have a positive influence on adolescents, increasing self-esteem and producing a more positive body image. A systematic review of published articles over the past 10 years until June 2022 was conducted according to the PRISMA statement employing the electronic databases MEDLINE and Web of Science (639 records) to summarize the literature on the relationship between body image dissatisfaction (BID) and assessed by figural scales and practice of structured and unstructured PA in adolescents (10-18 years), taking into account BMI and/or weight status. All articles were independently reviewed using inclusion/exclusion criteria, retrieved data, and assessed quality with the adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The main finding of interest that emerged from most of the 28 included studies is the negative association between BID and PA during adolescence: as PA increases, BID decreases. However, this updated systematic review also identified some flaws in the existing literature, highlighting the need for high-quality adolescent research using validated figural scales and objective PA assessments. In conclusion, the reviewed studies showed that PA involvement can be efficacious in protecting from body image perception concerns and enhancing body satisfaction. Future interventions should promote structured and unstructured PA during adolescence to improve self-esteem and body image.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".