The Relationship between Physical Activity, Depression and Anxiety in People with COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression and anxiety are related to physical activity among people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although the strength and direction of the reported relationships are inconsistent. This study systematically synthesized the relationships between physical activity and i) depression and ii) anxiety in people with COPD. Physical activity measurement type (objective, self-report) was examined as a moderator of these relationships. A systematic search of physical activity and COPD was conducted from inception to February 2022 across 8 databases. Studies were included if they provided correlation coefficients for the relationship between measures of physical activity and depression or anxiety in people with COPD and were published in English. Two reviewers independently screened, reviewed and extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Across 13 studies, a small relationship was found between physical activity and depression, weighted r = −0.15, 95%CI [-0.21, −0.10], which was not moderated by physical activity measurement type. Across 8 studies, a negligible relationship was found between physical activity and anxiety, weighted r = −0.03, 95%CI [-0.11, 0.04], although this was moderated by physical activity measurement type, such that self-reported physical activity had a small negative relationship with anxiety (weighted r = −0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, −0.03]) and objectively measured physical activity had a small positive relationship (weighted r = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.26]). In COPD, the bivariate association between physical activity and anxiety and depression are small.
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 | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".