MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, And Cardiometabolic Health Of Adults With Intellectual Disability: A Meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W4402556244 on OpenAlexaff
Cora J. Firkin, Laura C. Koch, Gregory M. Dominick, Adam Davey, Iva Obrusníková

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityMeta-analysisSedentary behaviorGerontologyIntellectual disabilityPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence evaluating the 2020 World Health Organization guidelines on the dose-response relationships between physical activity (PA), sedentary behavior (SB), and cardiometabolic health (CMH) outcomes in adults with intellectual disability (ID) was rated as “insufficient.” PURPOSE: Synthesize available data on quantified PA and SB levels of adults with ID, (1) comparing levels obtained by objective (e.g., wearable devices) and subjective (e.g., logs or surveys) assessment techniques and (2) evaluating their associations with CMH indicators. METHODS: Following PRISMA Guidelines, 11 electronic databases were searched through Sept 2023, yielding 7,911 records. Data from 82 studies were extracted in Covidence (v.2.0) and analyzed in STATA (v.18.0) to obtain daily steps and minutes of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity PA (MVPA), light-intensity PA (LPA), and stationary time (ST). Random-effects models estimated pooled results across studies, providing initial estimates of the association between PA or SB indicators and CMH indicators (body mass index [BMI], waist circumference [WC], body fat percentage [BF], systolic and diastolic blood pressure [BP]) in adults with ID. Two independent authors assessed risk of bias using a modified Downs and Black Checklist. RESULTS: The 82 studies included 11,117 adults with ID. Mean step-count was 6,814.4 steps/d (42 obs. from 28 studies, 95%CI [5,092.8-6,961.9]) and MVPA level was 24.8 min/d (37 obs. from 28 studies, 95%CI [20.1-29.4]). Pooled estimates obtained by solely objective techniques were significantly lower for steps (p < .01) and higher for LPA (p < .01) than by subjective techniques. BMI was reported in 55 studies (71 obs., M = 30.9 kg/m2, 95% CI [29.9-31.8]), WC in 14 studies, BF in 9 studies, and BP in 5 studies. Five studies (n range: 6-131) provided sufficient data to estimate correlations between MVPA and BMI (r range: -0.44 to +0.18, Mr = -0.18 ± 0.12). Four studies (n range: 9-60) contributed sufficient data to estimate correlations between steps/d and BMI (r range: -0.44 to -0.06, Mr = -0.19 ± 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with ID, daily step counts and MVPA minutes were negatively associated with BMI. Our findings were limited by the absence of reported empirical associations between PA, SB, and CMH indicators, necessitating more comprehensive investigations.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.042
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors→French-language works237,207→