MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367291532 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2810152/v1

Associations between Meeting 24-hour Movement Guidelines and Myopia Among School-aged Children: A cross-sectional study

2023· preprint· en· W4367291532 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mengxian Zhao, Yanjie Zhang, Haowen Wu, Fabian Herold, Alyx Taylor, Jianyu Chen, Meijun Hou, Zhihao Zhang, Yanping Gao, Jing Sun, M. Mahbub Hossain, Arthur F. Kramer, Notger G. Müller, Liye Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShenzhen University
KeywordsMedicineCross-sectional studyLogistic regressionDemographyScreen timePhysical activityPediatricsPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The Canadian 24-hour movement behavior (24-HMB) guidelines recommend an adequate level of physical activity (PA), a limited amount of screen time (ST), and sufficient sleep duration (SLP) to promote the healthy development of children. Although the positive effects of adhering to the 24-HMB guidelines have been established for several health parameters, less is known about how adherence to the 24-HMB guidelines relates myopia risk (i.e., inability to see distant objects properly). This study investigated associations between meeting 24-HMB guidelines and myopia risk in school-aged children.Method Using a questionnaire survey, this cross-sectional study was conducted among parents of school-aged children (5–13 years) in China from September 15 to October 15, 2022, with a total of 1,423 respondents with complete data for analysis. Parents reported their child’s time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), SLP and ST. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the associations between measures of PA, ST, and SLP alone and in combination, and myopia.Results A relatively low percentage of the children (4.92%) met all 24-HMB guidelines, while 32.46% had myopia. Girls had a significantly higher risk of myopia compared to boys (OR = 1.3, 1.002 to 1.68, p = 0.049). Children of parents without myopia had a lower risk of myopia (OR = 0.45, 0.34–0.59, p < 0.001). Children who lived in cities (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.52, p < 0.001) or towns (OR = 1.60, 1.03 to 2.47, p = 0.04) had a significantly higher risk of myopia compared to those living in villiages. Meeting SLP guidelines (OR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.82, p < 0.01), meeting ST + SLP guidelines (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.32–0.69, < 0.001), and meeting all three guidelines were associated with significantly decreased risk of myopia (OR = 0. 40, 95% CI 0.20–0.82, p = 0.01). Meeting more 24-HMB guidelines was associated with reduced risk of myopia.Conclusions Adhering to SLP guideline, ST + SLP guideines, and ST + SLP + PA may be a preventive approach to the onset and progression of myopia. Future research investigating dose-response associations, and potential mechanisms, is necessary to achieve a more nuanced understanding of the observed associations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.275
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207