MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413041305 · doi:10.1111/sms.70117

Technology‐Enabled Exercise “Snacks” Are Feasible to Perform in a Real‐World Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4413041305 on OpenAlexafffund
Fiona J. Babir, Hashim Islam, Sara McCreary, Erica Vaz, Kaja Falkenhain, Kaela Cranston, Mary E. Jung, Joel Singer, Roderick E. Sandilands, Alexis Marcotte‐Chénard, Emmanuel Stamatakis, Douglas L. Richards, Martin J. Gibala, Jonathan P. Little

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusMcMaster University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKillam TrustsMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyComputer scienceMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This randomized controlled trial investigated the feasibility and efficacy of a 12‐week remotely delivered exercise snacks intervention in the real world. Inactive adults ( n = 77; 56 females, 21 males; mean age ± SD: 54 ± 6 years, mean VO 2peak ± SD: 24.5 ± 4.4 mL/kg/min) were randomized to an exercise snacks ( n = 38; bodyweight exercises) or a placebo exercise control group ( n = 39; stretching exercises). Participants were encouraged to perform ≥ 3 exercise bouts/day (bouts were ≤ 1 min), ≥ 3 days/week delivered through an online platform. Feasibility outcomes included exercise adherence and enjoyment. The primary efficacy outcome was peak oxygen uptake (VO 2peak ) at baseline and 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included rating of perceived exertion (RPE; 0–10 scale), exercise enjoyment scale (EES; 0–7), and blood biomarkers of cardiometabolic health. Seventy‐three participants completed the intervention and 71 completed at least one follow‐up testing measure. Adherence, based on total bouts from the online platform, exceeded the prescribed minimum and was not different between the exercise snacks (173 ± 74) and control (158 ± 92) groups ( p = 0.37). RPE across the intervention was higher in the exercise snacks compared to the control group (3.0 ± 0.7 vs. 2.1 ± 0.6, respectively; p < 0.001) with high enjoyment (both groups averaging ~4.2 ± 0.9; p > 0.05). There were no between‐group differences in the change in absolute (mean difference: 0.0 [95% CI: −0.1, 0.1] L/min) or relative (0.4 [−0.6, 1.4] mL/kg/min) VO 2peak ( p > 0.05). There were no differences in blood biomarkers of cardiometabolic health ( p > 0.05). Twelve weeks of remotely delivered exercise snacks were feasible for inactive adults to complete in the real world. Future work may need to optimize the exercise snacks stimulus to elicit physiological changes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05574426

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in SportsSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207