Association of Physical Activity and Screen Time With Body Mass Index Among US Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report identified important research gaps to inform future guidance for adolescents, including limited evidence on the importance of sedentary behaviors (screen time) and their interactions with physical activity for adolescent health outcomes, including overweight and obesity. Objective: To identify the independent associations of physical activity and screen time categories, and the interactions between physical activity and screen time categories, with body mass index (BMI) and overweight and obesity in adolescents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study collected from September 10, 2018, to September 29, 2020. Data were analyzed from July 8 to December 20, 2022. A total of 5797 adolescents aged 10 to 14 years from 21 racially and ethnically diverse study sites across the US were included in the analysis. Exposures: Categories of total step count per day (with 1000 to 6000 steps per day indicating low, >6000 to 12 000 steps per day indicating medium, and >12 000 steps per day indicating high), as measured by a wearable digital device (Fitbit), and categories of self-reported screen time hours per day (with 0 to 4 hours per day indicating low, >4 to 8 hours per day indicating medium, and >8 hours per day indicating high). Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant BMI was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared and converted into sex- and age-specific percentiles in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth curves and definitions. Individuals were classified as having overweight or obesity if their BMI was in the 85th percentile or higher for sex and age. Results: Among 5797 adolescents included in the analytic sample, 50.4% were male, 61.0% were White, 35.0% had overweight or obesity, and the mean (SD) age was 12.0 (0.6) years. Mean (SD) reported screen time use was 6.5 (5.4) hours per day, and mean (SD) overall step count was 9246.6 (3111.3) steps per day. In models including both screen time and step count, medium (risk ratio [RR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.37) and high (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.16-1.44) screen time categories were associated with higher overweight or obesity risk compared with the low screen time category. Medium (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.35) and low (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11-1.51) step count categories were associated with higher overweight or obesity risk compared with the high step count category. Evidence of effect modification between screen time and step count was observed for BMI percentile. For instance, among adolescents with low screen use, medium step count was associated with a 1.55 higher BMI percentile, and low step count was associated with a 7.48 higher BMI percentile. However, among those with high screen use, step count categories did not significantly change the association with higher BMI percentile (low step count: 8.79 higher BMI percentile; medium step count: 8.76 higher BMI percentile; high step count: 8.26 higher BMI percentile). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a combination of low screen time and high step count was associated with lower BMI percentile in adolescents. These results suggest that high step count may not offset higher overweight or obesity risk for adolescents with high screen time, and low screen time may not offset higher overweight or obesity risk for adolescents with low step count. These findings addressed several research gaps identified by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report and may be used to inform future screen time and physical activity guidance for adolescents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, 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".