Children With Congenital Heart Disease and the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Factors such as physical activity (PA), sedentary time, screen time, and sleep affect the holistic health of children with congenital heart disease (CHD). Despite this, their proximity to reaching the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines is unknown. This review sought to synthesize evidence for PA, sedentary time, screen time, and sleep behaviour of children with CHD and compare them with the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines. Six online databases were searched for research published from January 2010 to May 2024. Eligible articles included research involving children aged 4-20 years with any type of CHD lesion as well as a measure of one of PA, sedentary time, screen time, or sleep, reported in a unit of time. The search resulted in 9199 articles, and after removing ineligible articles, 30 were identified for this review. Of the included articles, 30 measured moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), 8 measured light PA, 14 measured sedentary time, 1 measured screen time, and 3 measured sleep time. Forty percent of studies reported that children with CHD met the MVPA guidelines. Within these, a subset of studies (n = 20) examined the percentage of the sample that reached the guideline and found that an average of 43% of children with CHD attained the MVPA guideline. No conclusions could be made for light PA or sedentary time because there is no clear quantification or numerical recommendation in the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines. In addition, future research should include evaluations of the screen and sleep time of children with CHD due to very limited research in the area.
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 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".