Comparing and assessing physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines for different populations with and without chronic conditions and/or disabilities: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity guidelines targeting different populations with and without chronic diseases or disabilities are required to meet the diverse functional and physiological needs experienced by different subgroups of people to achieve optimal health benefits. As the importance of physical activity guidelines in promoting optimal health and well-being becomes increasingly recognised, there is a critical need for their systematic evaluation to ensure they remain effective, applicable and aligned with evolving health needs and scientific insights. This study aims to systematically review, critically evaluate, and compare global physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines on frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise for adults, pregnant and postpartum women, and people living with chronic conditions and/or disabilities. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist. We will search the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, APA PsycInfo, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Education Resources Information Center, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and grey literature databases from 2010 to October 2024. Two reviewers will independently select guidelines, extract data and assess methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument . Key recommendations will be summarised and classified as 'strong' and 'conditional' based on established criteria. A comprehensive evaluation of current guidelines will identify their differences and similarities and reveal their relevance in practical settings. The findings will guide healthcare professionals, researchers and policymakers in implementing evidence-based recommendations for managing physical activity and sedentary behaviour in targeted populations. Additionally, we will highlight current knowledge gaps and potential shortcomings in existing guidelines. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023491339.
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 | 0.122 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.013 |
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".