Comparison of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Patterns by Sex, Geographical Location, and Time of the Week in Mexican Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Excess sedentary behaviour (SB) and insufficient physical activity have been identified as risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases in adolescents, and some factors may affect how much time they spend on these activities. This study sought to compare the SB and PA patterns as well as compliance with PA recommendations by sex, geographical location, and time of the week in Mexican adolescents. Methods: In a cross-sectional design, we objectively assessed SB and PA in 106 adolescents (15 to 18 y) through waist-worn accelerometers for one week. The time spent in SB and in PA at different intensities was compared by sex, geographical location and time of the week with two-way and three-way repeated measures MANOVAs, while the compliance with physical activity recommendations (i.e., ≥60 min/day) was compared using chi-squared and McNemar tests. Results: Male participants spent more time in moderate, vigorous, and moderate to vigorous PA than females both during the whole week and on weekdays (all p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in SB nor PA by geographical location (i.e., metropolitan vs. non-metropolitan areas). Moreover, all participants spent more time on moderate, vigorous, and moderate to vigorous PA on weekdays than on weekends (p < 0.05). Compliance with international PA recommendations also showed a sex difference (males > females) and change between weekdays and weekends with no difference by geographical location. Conclusions: While geographical location does not seem to be a relevant factor, sex and time of the week appear to influence the SB and PA patterns in Mexican 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".