MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415176679 · doi:10.2196/preprints.85851

Physical activity during adolescence protects against depression in adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis (Preprint)

2025· review· en· W4415176679 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qin Deng, Jiaojiao Hou, Peijing Yan, Rong Xiang, Linna Sha, Jiangbo Zhu, Xunying Zhao, Changfeng Xiao, Chenjiarui Qin, Yang Qu, Tao Han, Xin Song, Bin Yang, Ting Yu, Jinyu Zhou, Sirui Zheng, Mengyu Fan, Xia Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Observational studyConfidence intervalOdds ratioAssociation (psychology)Physical activityMeta-analysisOddsCohort studyProspective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Growing evidence indicates physical activity (PA) in early life appear to influence depression development in later life. However, questions remain regarding whether PA during adolescence, a critical early-life period, has a long-term impact on depression in adulthood. OBJECTIVE This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the association between PA during adolescence and depression in adulthood. METHODS We systematically searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane, and PsycINFO, to identify prospective observational studies that examined the association between PA during adolescence and the risk of depression in adulthood. The literature search was conducted from the inception of these databases to November 17, 2022, with an update to December 20, 2024. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence through Newcastle - Ottawa Scale. We employed a random-effects model with inverse variance weighting to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS Eleven original studies including 45,281 adolescents (49% boys) were reviewed. Compared to adolescents with lower levels of PA, adolescents with higher levels of PA had a 29% decreased risk of developing depression in adulthood (OR = 0.71, 95%CI = 0.59-0.86, P < 0.01; τ^2 = 0.07; I^2 = 86.0%). Notably, compared to those with a stable low level of PA, adolescents who increased their PA levels showed a 21% reduced risk of depression in adulthood (OR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.68-0.92), while those who sustained high levels of PA experienced an even greater reduction (OR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.54-0.81). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of findings. Subgroup analyses indicated that heterogeneity was primarily attributed to data source (Pinteraction = 0.04) and follow-up period (Pinteraction < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Our systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies indicates that higher levels of PA during adolescence protect against depression in adulthood. These findings reinforce the importance of promoting PA during adolescence as a key focus of public policies to reduce mental health issues in later life.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.028
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→