A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first decade of compositional data analyses of 24-hour movement behaviours, health, and well-being in school-aged children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Movement behaviours (e.g., sleep, sedentary behaviour, light physical activity [LPA], moderate to vigorous physical activity [MVPA]) are associated with numerous health and well-being outcomes. Compositional data analyses (CoDA) accounts for the interdependent nature of movement behaviours. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a timely synthesis of the first decade of CoDA research examining the association between movement behaviours, health, and well-being in school-aged children. METHODS: Databases were systematically searched for peer-reviewed studies examining CoDA associations between movement behaviours and health or well-being in school-aged children (5.0-17.9 years). All health and well-being outcomes were eligible for inclusion, as were all methods of reporting CoDA results. Where possible meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: =1). Weighted compositional means of movement behaviours were calculated (e.g., 49.8 min/day of MVPA). For regression analyses, results were generally null, though some favourable trends were observed for MVPA and unfavourable trends for LPA and sedentary behaviour within individual health and well-being outcomes categories. Meta-analyses of substitutions supported the benefits of MVPA, with the risks of reducing MVPA for other movement behaviours being double the magnitude compared to the benefits of adding MVPA. DISCUSSION: The most consistent conclusions within this review align with previous reviews that support the benefits of MVPA. Further, some evidence supported 24-hour movement behaviour guideline recommendations of increasing sleep and decreasing sedentary behaviour. This review also quantified not only the need to promote MVPA, but perhaps more importantly the urgency needed to preserve the limited MVPA children currently accumulate. Findings reinforce the "more/less is better" messages for movement behaviours, but do not allow us to recommend more specific balances of movement behaviours. As CoDA of movement behaviours progresses and accumulates further research, the methods and discussion points within the current review can aide future meta-analyses aimed at advancing the precision health guidance needed for optimizing children's health and well-being.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".