MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6942265998 · doi:10.14288/hfjc.v14i3.635

Review and comparison of new sedentary behaviour guidelines in adults and older adults for the United States, Canada, and the World Health Organization

2021· article· en· W6942265998 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelinePublic healthSedentary lifestyleSedentary behaviorScientific evidencePhysical activityMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To provide an overview, comparison, and discussion of recently released public health guidelines for sedentary behaviour by the United States, Canada, and the World Health Organization (WHO). Description: Sedentary behaviour (i.e., seated/reclining posture with low energy expenditure) has emerged as an important public health target and evidence on its relationship with mortality and other important health outcomes is rapidly accumulating. Sedentary behaviour guidelines have now been released by several countries targeting children and adolescents, and to a lesser extent adults and older adults. Most recently, guideline committees in the United States, Canada, and for the WHO have conducted comprehensive reviews to synthesize the evidence on sedentary behaviour and health and generated new or updated guidelines on sedentary behaviour for adults and older adults. Despite being derived from a similar evidence base, guideline statements differ for these governing bodies in important ways. This symposium will highlight the processes each of these committees followed and how these processes led to similarities and differences in the resultant guideline statements. A robust discussion will follow on the research gaps that have emerged and how these gaps can be addressed by the scientific community. Dr. Emmanual Stamatakis, University of Sydney (Chair/Discussant), Title: Guideline development processes for sedentary behaviour. Description: Dr. Stamatakis will provide introductory comments on the importance of national and international guidelines for public policy and the need to contextualize evidence for individual country environments. Dr. Peter Katzmarzyk, Pennington Biomedical Research Center. Title: Elements of Sedentary Behaviour in the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd Edition. Description: Dr. Katzmarzyk will provide an overview of the sedentary behaviour elements of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd Edition (2018). Dr. Travis Saunders, University of Prince Edward Island. Title: Sedentary behaviour guidelines in Canada: An integral component of 24-hour movement guidelines. Description: Dr. Saunders will provide an overview of the sedentary behaviour guidelines development process for the 2020 Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults and Older Adults. Dr. Matthew Buman, Arizona State University. Title: Updating evidence and crafting stand-alone sedentary behaviour guidelines for the WHO. Description: Dr. Buman will provide an overview of the sedentary behaviour guidelines development process for the 2020 WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour for Children and Adolescents, Adults and Older Adults. Results: Several important scientific issues had considerable bearing on the formation of sedentary behaviour guideline statements by these guidelines committees, including but not limited to: (a) definitions of sedentary behaviour and its bearing on measurement in reviewed evidence; (b) dose-response evidence for sedentary behaviour and health and the appropriateness of quantitative guidelines, evidence on total sedentary time v. patterns of sedentary time (i.e., ‘breaks’), and (c) knowledge translation, communication, and inclusivity considerations in how guideline statements are crafted and communicated to various stakeholders. Conclusions: National and international public health guideline statements play an important role in shaping public policy, and the evidence on sedentary behaviour and health is rapidly accumulating. A deliberate and coordinated effort is needed to address important research gaps that will build greater international consensus on how to optimally reduce health risks through limiting sedentary time.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0200.028
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designSystematic review
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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