Effects of exergaming on the microcirculation of adolescents with overweight or obesity—a clinical trial efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the effect of exergaming on the microcirculation function of adolescents with overweight or obesity, this non-randomized clinical trial efficacy was conducted with 61 adolescents aged between 10 and 16 years. The intervention group ( n = 31) performed exergaming three times per week for 8 weeks. Both groups received guidelines for a healthy diet and staying physically active. Microcirculation was assessed using a laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) at baseline and after intervention. Primary outcomes derived from LDF assessment included resting flow, maximum flow, maximum/resting flow ratio, area under hyperemia, and post-occlusive reactive hyperemia (PORH). Secondary outcomes were body mass index and systemic blood pressure. Unpaired Student's t test compared intergroup analyses, and paired Student's t test compared intragroup analyses. The significance was set at 5%. Statistical analysis intergroup and intragroup was done by fitting a two-way mixed effects model. Microcirculation was similar between groups. Maximum flow (109.0 ± 38.3 versus 124.6 ± 43.0, P = 0.022), area under hyperemia (1614 ± 472 versus. 1755 ± 461, P = 0.023), and PORH (2.18 ± 0.49 versus 2.01 ± 0.52, P = 0.031) were statistically different after intervention. Body mass index decreased in intervention (24.5 ± 3.8–24.1 ± 4.0 kg/m2, P = 0.002) and control (25.2 ± 3.2–25.1 ± 3.3 kg/m2, P = 0.031) groups. Systolic blood pressure decreased significantly in the intervention group (110 ± 10–106 ± 9 mm Hg; P = 0.041) but not diastolic blood pressure (66.0 ± 7–68.8 ± 8 mm Hg; P = 0.089). Exergaming for 8 weeks led to improvements in the microcirculation function in adolescents with overweighed or obesity. Clinical trials: NTC03532659.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".