Adherence to the 24‐h Movement Behaviors Guidelines and Associations With Cognitive and Behavioral Self‐Regulation Among Brazilian Preschoolers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adherence to 24-h movement guidelines has been associated with early health benefits, including neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, the associations between these guidelines and Cognitive (CSR) and Behavioral (BSR) self-regulation in preschoolers are underexplored. This study investigated the associations between adherence to 24-h movement guidelines and CSR and BSR in Brazilian preschoolers. METHODS: A total of 223 preschoolers (4.76 ± 0.32 years old; 50.67% boys) participated. Physical activity (PA) was assessed with Actigraph wGT3X. Parents reported children's sleep and screen time. CSR was evaluated through iPad games, and BSR was assessed using the Head, Toes, Knees, Shoulders test revised. RESULTS: = 0.029). Positive association was found between adherence to combined PA and screen time with cognitive flexibility (β = 4.091 [95% CI: 0.699, 7.754]). Adherence to PA was associated with lower BSR scores (β = -7.104 [-13.52, -0.623]), as was adherence to combined PA and sleep duration (β = -8.813 [-15.794, -1.397]). CONCLUSION: This study highlighted differences in adherence to movement behavior guidelines between boys and girls, as well as demonstrated that different combinations of these behaviors can affect preschoolers' cognitive and behavioral levels of self-regulation in distinct ways.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".