The Effect of School-Based Physical Activity Interventions on Body Mass Index Among Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Randomised Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity has become a global health concern among the child and adolescent populations. We performed a systematic review for an indirect comparison of the effectiveness of aerobic exercise (AE) school-based physical activity (SBPA) interventions versus resistance training (RT) SBPA interventions in changing adolescent body mass index (BMI). OVID Medline, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched. All English-language, peer-reviewed randomized control trials (RCTs) that examined SBPA inter- ventions and objectively measured BMI as an outcome in adolescents aged 10-18 were eligible for inclusion. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Of the 355 records identified, 10 met the eligibility criteria and 5 were included in the best evidence synthesis (BES). Five studies had a high risk of bias, two had some concerns and three had a low risk of bias. In the BES, this study found that both types of interventions reported either decreases or maintenance in BMI. However, due to the limited number of included studies, this review was unable to conduct an indirect comparison of the effects of AE and RT on changes in BMI. This finding could be beneficial in the planning of strategies to address overweight and obesity in adolescents. Further RCTs with a low risk of bias are required to compare the effects of AE and RT SBPA on BMI in adolescents.
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 | 0.019 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".