Walkability and physical activity: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The appropriate area for walking, related to the flow of walking, on the sidewalks and crossing (walkability) influences the practice of physical activity. However, there is no evidence of meta-analyses that have evaluated this association. Therefore, this study presents a protocol to assess the association between walkability and physical activity. The systematic review protocol was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and will includes a search in the following databases: PubMed, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane. It will include observational studies, cross-sectional and longitudinal, that assessed the association between walkability in the neighborhood and physical activity. The process of study selection will be conducted independently by two reviewers. The process will start by reading the titles and abstracts of interest, followed by the full reading of the articles through the Rayyan platform. We will assess the methodological and individual quality across the studies utilizing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Chi-Squared test (I2). To test the influence of variables in the meta-analysis results, we will use, whenever possible, the meta-regression technique. The meta-analysis results will be presented as Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval, through a random or fixed-effects model, according to estimate of clinical, statistical, and methodological heterogeneity. If possible, stratifications will be performed according to age group, sex, and physical activity levels. With the expected results, we hope that the knowledge will be useful to encourage the implementation of public policies for walkability in the neighborhood to increase physical activity levels.
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 | 0.098 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.011 |
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".