Cardiorespiratory fitness and health in children and adolescents: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses representing over 125 000 observations covering 33 health-related outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To synthesise data on the associations between cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and health in children and adolescents, evaluate the certainty of evidence and identify knowledge gaps. DESIGN: An overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Results were pooled using forest plots and certainty of evidence evaluated with GRADE. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched from January 2002 to March 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTED STUDIES: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses exploring CRF and health in children and adolescents aged <18 years. RESULTS: From the 9062 records identified, 14 reviews were included. Meta-analysed data from 125 164 observations covering 33 health outcomes were compiled, showing favourable (n=26) or null (n=7) associations with CRF. Among general populations, the associations were weak-to-moderate, with favourable links between CRF and indicators of anthropometry and adiposity, cardiometabolic and vascular health, and mental health and well-being. Among clinical populations, CRF was lower in participants with a condition compared with healthy controls, with the largest difference for newly diagnosed cancer (mean difference=-19.6 mL/kg/min; 95%CI: -21.4,-17.8). Patients with cystic fibrosis had a greater risk for all-cause mortality when comparing low CRF vs. high (relative risk=4.9; 95%CI: 1.1, 22.1). The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. CONCLUSION: CRF shows promising links to numerous health outcomes in paediatric populations, though the low certainty of evidence calls for further research. High-quality longitudinal evidence is warranted to confirm the findings and investigate a predictive role of childhood CRF for future health.
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 | 0.028 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".