Associations between combinations of 24‐h movement behaviors and physical fitness among Chinese adolescents: Sex and age disparities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between 24-h movement behaviors and adolescents' physical fitness, with sex difference and age disparity explored specifically. METHODS: A total of 135 852 Chinese adolescents aged 13-22 years were included in this cross-sectional study. Self-reported 24-h movement behavioral times, including moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), recreational screen, and sleep, were identified as meeting guidelines based on Canadian recommendations. Physical fitness indicator (PFI) was calculated through sex- and age-specific z scores of body mass index, forced vital capacity, 50 m dash, sit-and-reach, standing long jump, body muscle strength, and endurance running, and then classified as: low level (<20th), middle level (20th-80th), and high level (>80th). Mixed effect logistic regression was applied to analyze the association, and interaction terms were constructed to prove the sex and age disparities. RESULTS: Only 12.4% of adolescents aged 13-22 years met all three recommendations. The number of meeting guidelines exhibited a typical dose-response relationship with high level PFI (OR = 1.22 [95% CI: 1.19-1.25]), and in detail, meeting MVPA + recreational screen (OR = 2.29 [95% CI: 2.09-2.51]) or MVPA-only (OR = 2.16 [95% CI: 1.93-2.41]) guidelines were better associated with high-level PFI. Besides, meeting MVPA-only guideline was proved with stronger association with high-level PFI for boys (p-interaction = 0.005). The dose-response relationship in boys of the number of guidelines met with PFI was stronger in 19- to 22-year-olds (p-interaction <0.001) and 16- to 18-year-olds (p-interaction = 0.001) than that in 13- to 15-year-olds. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of meeting 24-h movement behaviors guidelines among Chinese adolescents aged 13-22 years was relatively low. It was associated with adolescents' physical fitness, with meeting MVPA + recreational screen or MVPA-only guidelines bringing greater benefits, and sex difference and age disparity existing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".