MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410708906 · doi:10.1002/erv.3205

Contextualising Physical Activity Levels in Patients With Anorexia Nervosa: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4410708906 on OpenAlexaff
Álex V. Pagador, Hugo Olmedillas, Danika A. Quesnel, Iván Cavero‐Redondo, María Fernández-del-Valle

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Eating Disorders Review · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundación para el Fomento en Asturias de la Investigación Científica Aplicada y la Tecnología
KeywordsAnorexia nervosaMeta-analysisPsychological interventionEating disordersPopulationPhysical activitySystematic reviewClinical psychologyPsychologySubgroup analysisMedicinePsychiatryMEDLINEInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a mental disorder most prevalent among adolescent females, with rising cases in younger and more culturally diverse populations. Unhealthy activity patterns are common and have been linked to increased relapse rates; however, data on objectively measured physical activity levels (PALs) in this population is scarce. This study aimed to examine PALs and sedentary time (ST) in patients with AN. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, 16 studies met inclusion criteria (PICO strategy). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses by age and treatment phase were performed. RESULTS: Patients' mean age ranged from 12.6 to 36.2 years. Pooled mean ST was high (617.49 min/day). Light physical activity (LPA), moderate physical activity (MPA) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were higher in adult studies, while vigorous physical activity (VPA) was higher in adolescents. Steps were reported only in adult samples. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis assessing objectively measured PALs in AN patients. Findings reveal different PALs patterns by age-group, and insufficient data by treatment stage. These results identified a critical research gap essential for future development of targeted interventions and informed strategies to support recovery.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.020
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.310 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueEuropean Eating Disorders ReviewSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207