MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406931717 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13955.1

The Use of Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials (SMARTs) in Physical Activity Interventions: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4406931717 on OpenAlexaff
Aoife Whiston, Kelley M. Kidwell, Siobhán O'Rielly, Cathal Walsh, John Forbes, Jane Walsh, Liam Glynn, Katie Robinson, Sara Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersHealth Research Board
KeywordsProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialPsychological interventionComputer scienceMedicineAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Adaptive interventions involve a sequence of treatments tailored to individual responses, requiring multiple treatment decisions throughout an individual’s treatment pathway. Effective management of many chronic health conditions requires interventions adapted to individual performance. Physical activity (PA) is central to risk reduction therapies for chronic conditions. PA interventions are complex, multidimensional, and tailored to individual responses over time, requiring flexible study designs. However, PA intervention evidence is dominated by standard trial designs for non-adaptive interventions. A sequential, multiple assignment, randomised trial (SMART) design was developed to build adaptive interventions. SMARTs are factorial designs with sequential settings. Despite their potential for developing flexible interventions, SMARTs are relatively new in PA research. This review examines the state of SMART designs in PA interventions, focusing on study characteristics, design, and analysis methods. Methods and analysis A systematic review of SMARTs, wherein the intervention consisted of a PA intervention, will be conducted (June 2023). The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. The reference lists of all the identified studies will be reviewed to identify additional studies for inclusion. The titles and abstracts were independently screened by two review authors for selection. Any disagreement regarding inclusion was resolved by discussion or by referral to a third assessor. The methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Ethics and dissemination As this systematic review will only collect secondary data, ethical approval is not required. These findings will be disseminated through academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

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)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.148
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.148
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.019
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0980.015

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 head0.871
GPT teacher head0.702
Teacher spread0.169 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB Open ResearchSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207