The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 28 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive outcomes and academic performance in adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
The aim was to provide a meta-analysis of studies investigating the effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive outcomes and academic performance in adolescents or young adults. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed using the following databases: Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Studies had to meet the following criteria: controlled study design, investigating the effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive outcomes and academic performance in healthy adolescents or young adults (12–30 years). Results showed that acute interventions (n=44) significantly improved processing speed (ES=0.39), attention (ES=0.34) and, inhibition (ES=0.32). In a subsequent meta-regression, shorter duration of intervention was significantly associated with greater improvements in attention (β=−0.02) and cognitive flexibility (β=−0.04), whereas age, percentage of boys, intensity and dose were not. Chronic interventions (n=27) significantly improved processing speed (ES=0.30), attention (ES=0.50), cognitive flexibility (ES=0.19), working memory (ES=0.59) and language skills (ES=0.31). In the meta-regression, higher percentage of boys was significantly associated with greater improvements in attention (β=0.02) and working memory (β=0.01) whereas age, duration, frequency, dose and load were not. In conclusion, acute and chronic physical activity interventions might be a promising way to improve several cognitive outcomes and language skills in adolescents and young adults.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This meta-analysis found that acute and chronic physical activity interventions can improve several cognitive outcomes in adolescents and young adults, with chronic interventions also improving language skills. Chronic interventions showed broader and generally larger effects than acute interventions, but heterogeneity and possible publication bias warrant caution.
Key findings
- Acute interventions (44 studies, k = 91) significantly improved overall cognitive outcomes (Hedges’ g = 0.31, 95% CI 0.22–0.41), including processing speed (g = 0.39), attention (g = 0.34), and inhibition (g = 0.32); effects were not significant for cognitive flexibility (g = 0.37, 95% CI −0.00–0.75) or working memory (g = 0.14, 95% CI −0.11–0.39).
- Chronic interventions (27 studies; cognitive k = 52, academic k = 15) significantly improved overall cognitive outcomes (g = 0.36, 95% CI 0.25–0.47), including processing speed (g = 0.30), attention (g = 0.50), cognitive flexibility (g = 0.19), working memory (g = 0.59), and language (g = 0.31); effects were not significant for GPA (g = 0.20) or mathematics (g = 0.31).
- In acute interventions, shorter duration was associated with greater improvements in attention (β = −0.021) and cognitive flexibility (β = −0.036); in chronic interventions, higher percentage of boys was associated with greater improvements in attention (β = 0.02) and working memory (β = 0.01).
- Publication bias was indicated for chronic cognitive outcomes (Egger’s p = 0.007), but not for acute outcomes (p = 0.653) or chronic academic performance (p = 0.926).
Methods
- Systematic review and meta-analysis registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019122030) and conducted per PRISMA; databases searched were Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through 27 March 2020.
- Included controlled studies (RCT or cross-over; baseline adjustment required if non-randomized) of physical activity interventions with a sports or exercise component in healthy participants with mean age 12–30 years, reporting cognitive or academic outcomes; excluded special populations, reviews, and combined interventions.
- Seventy-one papers were eligible: 44 acute studies (k = 91) and 27 chronic studies (k = 52 cognitive, k = 15 academic), including 3544 adolescents and 2397 young adults; random-effects Hedges’ g, heterogeneity, moderator/meta-regression, Cochrane risk of bias, and Egger/funnel publication bias analyses were used.
Limitations
- Stated by the paper: not all subgroup and meta-regression analyses could be performed due to small numbers of studies; chronic total load and fitness improvement could not be analyzed because most studies did not report intensity; publication bias was possible for chronic cognitive outcomes; and cognitive outcomes were measured with a wide variety of instruments, which may have contributed to heterogeneity.
- Evident from the text: heterogeneity was large or moderate in many analyses (e.g., acute cognitive outcomes I² = 64.9%; chronic cognitive outcomes I² = 62.1%), so findings should be interpreted cautiously.
- Evident from the text: academic performance was only assessed in adolescents, not young adults, and the oldest mean age for academic outcomes was 15.3 years, limiting generalization; risk of bias was high or unclear in many domains (e.g., allocation concealment 65.8% high risk, blinding of researchers/personnel 91.8%/97.3% high risk, detection bias 84.9% high risk).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
50 Own result · 30 Own method · 23 Not checked yet · 20 Own interpretation · 11 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas age, duration, frequency, dose and load were not.”
plaincorrelationaln = 27- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and working memory (β=0.01)”
plaincorrelationaln = 27 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“higher percentage of boys was significantly associated with greater improvements in attention (β=0.02)”
plaincorrelationaln = 27 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Heterogeneity in effect sizes was moderate ( I 2 = 63%, p = 0.001).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“cognitive flexibility (ES=0.19)”
- Also stated in: § Effects of chronic physical activity interventions · p. 7 · plain
“a significant small sized effect for cognitive flexibility (Hedges's g = 0.19; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.33)”
plaindirectn = 27 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Effects of chronic physical activity interventions · p. 7 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, chronic physical activity interventions had a significant moderately sized effect on academic performance (Hedges's g = 0.34; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.49).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dose of the intervention was not significantly related to effects for working memory and inhibition.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas age, duration, frequency, dose and load were not.”
plainn = 27- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the meta-regressions, percentage of boys was signifi cantly and inversely related to the effects of attention (β = 0.02; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03, p = 0.021) and working memory (β = 0.01; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03, p = 0.033).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, higher dose of the intervention was inversely related to the effects of attention (β = -0.00; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00, p = 0.028).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The quote only partly states this claim. 9
- It may state two separate claims as one. 34
- Probably not a substantial claim. 35
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but no effects for cognitive flexibility (Hedges's g = 0.37; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.75)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and language skills (ES=0.31)”
plaindirectn = 27 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For working memory, age, duration, frequency, dose and load were not significantly related with the studies' effect sizes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, chronic physical activity interventions had a moderate effect on cognitive outcomes (Hedges's g = 0.36; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.47).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Age, percentage of boys and intensity were not significantly related with the studies' effect sizes for any of the cognitive domains or there were too few to perform the meta regression analyses.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a significant moderately sized effect for executive functions (Hedges's g = 0.29; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.40)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“attention (ES=0.34)”
plaindirectn = 44- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and executive functions (Hedges's g = 0.35; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.50)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but no effect for inhibition (Hedges's g = 0.16; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and working memory (Hedges's g = 0.14; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.39)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results showed that acute interventions ( n =44) significantly improved processing speed (ES=0.39)”
plaindirectn = 44- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This meta-analysis showed significant effect sizes after a chronic intervention but not after an acute intervention on cog nitive flexibility and working memory.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sex did differ between the two types of studies: in chronic interven tions, effects were stronger for studies with a high percentage of boys compared to low percentage of boys, while no differ ence in the effects for high and low percentage of boys was found in acute studies.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the meta-analysis showed that chronic physical activity interventions have a positive effect on processing speed, attention, cognitive flexibility, working memory and lan guage, where the largest effect was found on working memory.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Next to sex, age was also tested as a moderator, however age had similar effects in acute versus chronic studies, and could therefore not explain the difference between chronic and acute studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Between studies, duration of interventions varied between 5 and 60 minutes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the conflicting findings do not seem to be related to differences in the measures used to assess working memory: for both acute as well as chronic intervention stu dies, similar instruments were used to measure working mem ory in the included studies.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In acute intervention studies only aerobic or resistance exercises were given, but in chronic studies also yoga and cognitively challen ging exercises were given besides or instead of the aerobic exercises.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sample descriptives, study design, outcome measures and characteristics of the intervention were independently extracted by two review authors (BH, RW).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After removal of duplicates, the first author BH and a trained research assistant independently screened the titles and abstracts to assess eligibility criteria. Following this, full-text articles were assessed independently by the first author BH and another trained research assistant. Disagreements were discussed and consensus was reached together.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A random effects approach was used to compute effect sizes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect sizes were corrected for small sample bias (Hedges' g) and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For each meta-analyses, moderator analyses were only performed if each category of the potential moderator was filled with at least three studies (Borenstein et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Borenstein et al., 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Two authors (BH, RW) independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies following the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing Risk of Bias (Higgins et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Higgins et al., 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“This review was conducted in accordance with the guidelines from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) (Moher et al., 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moher et al., 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Such morphological changes in brain structure may lead to enhanced cognitive outcomes and academic performance (Best, 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Best, 2010
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The protocol of this meta-analysis was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42019122030).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In most studies it was not possible to blind researchers and those involved in delivering the interven tion (91.8% and 97.3% respectively), therefore most studies were scored as having a high risk of bias.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, meta-regres sion analysis could not be performed for mathematics due to the small number of studies available.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the review of Gomez-Pinilla & Hillman (2013) brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is suggested to be an important initiator of synaptic plasticity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gomez-Pinilla & Hillman (2013)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In another metaanalysis, positive effects on language as well as on mathematics were found (Álvarez-Bueno, Pesce, Cavero-Redondo, SánchezLópez, Garrido-Miguel et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Álvarez-Bueno, Pesce, Cavero-Redondo, SánchezLópez, Garrido-Miguel et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The transition from childhood to adulthood starts with physical changes and hormonal changes. These changes start in late childhood or in early adolescence, also referred to as early puberty, and continue into early adulthood (Malina et al., 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Malina et al., 2004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, the transition from childhood into adulthood is characterised by a marked decrease in physical activity and an increase in sedentary behaviour (Corder et al., 2017; Hardy et al., 2007; Kimm et al., 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Corder et al., 2017
- Not checked yetcites Hardy et al., 2007
- Not checked yetcites Kimm et al., 2000
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the difference in time onset of physical activity changes and biological differences, boys have probably a better maximum oxygen uptake and are more active during and outside the intervention time, which will lead to a more pronounced effect on cognition in boys compared to girls.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Heterogeneous results between studies in this meta-analysis can possibly be explained by the fact that mostly school grades were used as outcome measure instead of standardized tests.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Concluding the current meta-analysis is the first to include a substantial number of studies investigating the effects of chronic physical activity interventions in adolescents and young adults which might explain the different conclusion reached as compared to previous reviews.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, during puberty physical activity patterns change, earlier in girls than in boys (Bacil et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bacil et al., 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Underlying processes that could increase this efficiency are neurogenesis and synaptogenesis, which are related to chronic interventions (Hillman et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hillman et al., 2015
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Probably, these divergent findings have emerged because these metaanalyses included mostly pre-adolescent children or older adults and almost no adolescents or early adulthood subjects.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“School grades are less objective and comparable with other studies than standardized tests, because they depend on the topic discussed in that period and sometimes the grade is awarded subjectively by the teacher.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sample and study characteristics might explain the discrepant findings for this difference in effect size.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sixth, no other sources that could have caused bias were observed.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One possible explanation for this difference in effect sizes is that different underlying mechanisms operate in acute and chronic interventions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, it should be noted that academic performance was only measured in adolescents and not in young adults, so findings cannot be generalized to young adulthood.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the majority of the studies (65.8%) did not describe the allocation concealment and were consequently judged as having high risk of bias.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems that the underlying process like synaptogenesis, neurogenesis and synaptic plasticity are the underlying mechanisms of improved cognitive flexibility and working memory.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The low levels of physical activity in adolescents might make physical activity interventions result in relatively large increases in physical activity in later-puberty than in pre-adolescent children.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the later-puberty, rapid development of the prefrontal cortex takes place which may make this structure especially sensitive to the effects of interventions, like physical activity interventions, compared to other developmental stages (Lebel et al., 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lebel et al., 2008
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our findings confirm the results of Rathore & Lom (2017) who also found positive significant effect sizes for working memory and those of De Greeff et al. (2018) who found positive results for working memory and cognitive flexibility, but not in inhibition.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rathore & Lom (2017)
- Not checked yetcites De Greeff et al. (2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In most studies it was not possible to blind researchers and those involved in delivering the interven tion (91.8% and 97.3% respectively), therefore most studies were scored as having a high risk of bias.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is suggested that physical activity, for example, facilitates working memory by increasing the effi ciency of evaluating the stimulus (Chang et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chang et al., 2013
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While in the age range of 12-18 years a lot of behavioural changes take place that stay present in adults (Cluskey & Grobe, 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cluskey & Grobe, 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, after a chronic intervention BDNF levels stay increased and therefore have a structural effect on neurons, like neurogen esis and synaptic plasticity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in that metaanalysis mainly preadolescent children were included. Only 3 out of 25 studies were conducted in similar age ranges as included in the current meta-analysis (12-30 years).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is slightly differ ent from a previous meta-analysis, which showed positive effects on science, including mathematics, but not on language or grade point average (Spruit et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Spruit et al., 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“After acute interventions, BDNF levels are increased for a short time period and could explain increased levels of arousal, attention and effort, which positively influences the performance on cognitive tasks (Kashihara et al., 2009; Tomporowski, 2003).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kashihara et al., 2009
- Not checked yetcites Tomporowski, 2003
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This may have been due to differences in compliance (boys may have been more active in chronic studies) or stage of maturation.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, studies did not investigate the opti mal intervention length, nor the persistence of the observed beneficial effects on cognitive functions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure C2. Funnel plot publication bias chronic interventions and neurocognitive functions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, it could be that with increasing intervention duration, participants get more exhausted, which in turn would have a negative effect on task performance after a long intervention session.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another limitation is the possibility of publication bias in the studies investigating chronic physical activity interventions.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“these age periods reflect a period of rapid maturation of the brain, with most prominent changes in the prefrontal cortex (Lebel et al., 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lebel et al., 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, information about adherence and compliance in the intervention and the maturation was not always reported in the studies and therefore we cannot say whether this is the case.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“During physical activity, cognition may or may not be challenged by performing (increasingly) difficult movements or by increasing rules or the number of objects to be handled in an exercise (Tomporowski et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tomporowski et al., 2015
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In cognitively challenging interventions the motorcognition network might play a role in the improvement of the executive functions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, chronic intervention studies seem more promising to improve working memory than acute interventions in adolescents, however, it is not clear what causes this difference.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the meta-analysis of Ludyga et al. (2016) it was suggested that short aerobic exercise bouts of moderate intensity restore cognitive resources, a finding that is in line with our results.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ludyga et al. (2016)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
In particular these characteristics of exercises challenge the motor-cognition network and this might explain the different results found in working memory.
“We assume that in particular these characteristics of exercises chal lenge the motor-cognition network and this might explain the different results found in working memory.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Conversely, acute physical activity interventions, such as training sessions lasting less than 60 min, have been found to positively influence attention and cognitive flexibility, but not working memory (Haverkamp et al. 2020).”
From Examining Working Memory Training for Healthy Adults—A Second-Order Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Haverkamp et al. 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Long-term physical activity, such as chronic physical activity interventions, has been found to have a positive effect on working memory (Haverkamp et al. 2020).”
From Examining Working Memory Training for Healthy Adults—A Second-Order Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Haverkamp et al. 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Regular physical activity positively influences WM performance more than acute physical activity (Rathore and Lom 2017; Haverkamp et al. 2020).”
From Examining Working Memory Training for Healthy Adults—A Second-Order Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Haverkamp et al. 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Meta-analytic evidence further demonstrates that both acute and chronic PA interventions are associated with preferable cognitive outcomes such as attention, working memory, and language skills in adolescents and young adults, which are implicated in school performance (Haverkamp et al., 2020).”
From Physical activity and academic performance in adolescents: a systematic review of intensity, frequency, and mediating factors (2026) · cites this paper as Haverkamp et al., 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, physiological mechanisms, such as neurotrophic modulation, may underlie the influence of PA on adolescent brain development; however, evidence in this population remains limited (Haverkamp et al., 2020).”
From Physical activity and academic performance in adolescents: a systematic review of intensity, frequency, and mediating factors (2026) · cites this paper as Haverkamp et al., 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Further research [22] saw deviations from this as they reported acute PA interventions significantly improved processing speed, inhibition and attention, whereas chronic PA interventions significantly improved processing speed, attention, cognitive flexibility, working memory, and language skills.”
From The Effects of Physical Activity on Academic Performance in School-Aged Children: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Effects of chronic physical activity interventions · p. 7
“a significant large sized effect for working memory (Hedges's g = 0.59; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90)”
§ Statistical analysis · p. 5
“The magnitude of Hedges' g was interpreted using Cohen's guidelines, distinguishing between small (<0.2), moderate (0.5), and large (>0.8) effect sizes (Cohen, 1988).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ ABSTRACT · p. 3
“whereas age, percentage of boys, intensity and dose were not.”
§ Moderator analysis · p. 7
“Furthermore, higher dose of the intervention was inversely related to the effects of attention (β = -0.00; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00, p = 0.028).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Moderator analysis · p. 8
“percentage of boys was signifi cantly and inversely related to the effects of attention (β = 0.02; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03, p = 0.021) and working memory (β = 0.01; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03, p = 0.033).”
§ ABSTRACT · p. 3
“higher percentage of boys was significantly associated with greater improvements in attention (β=0.02) and working memory (β=0.01)”
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042 · cited 3×
“If a study reported the outcome of interest in multiple subgroups (e.g., fit vs. unfit or high vs. low social economic status), the mean of the subgroups weighted by their sample sizes was used in the analyses (Moher et al., 2009).”
InfluentialPreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Diamond, A. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 · Cited by 13,268 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, neurocognitive functions are an important prerequisite for successful learning (Brown & Blanton, 2002; Diamond, 2013), and executive functions are indispensable for success throughout life (Diamond & Lee, 2011).”
BackgroundBorenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans
Piercy, K. L., Troiano, R. P., Ballard, R. M., Carlson, S. A., Fulton, J. E., Galuska, D. A., George, S. M., & Olson, R. D. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.14854 · Cited by 9,755 · cited 1×
“Despite the benefits of physical activity, nowadays more than 80% of adolescents do not adhere to the recommended physical activity guidelines (Piercy et al., 2018).”
BackgroundJanssen, I., & LeBlanc, A. G. (2010) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/1479-5868-7-40 · Cited by 4,829
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.06.005 · DOI
- Northey J. M., 2017, British Journal of Sports Medicine
- Pinto-Escalona T., 2019, Apunts: Educació Física I Esports, 138
- Sperlich B., 2018, Frontiers in Physiology, 9
- Subramanian S. K., 2015, Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR, 9, CC04
- Tamnes C. K., 2017, Journal of Neuroscience, 3302
- Verburgh L., 2013, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 091441
- Whyte E. F., 2014, Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 24, 4), 1-5
- Xue Y., 2019, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 099825
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An umbrella review of randomized control trials on the effects of physical exercise on cognition
Ciria, L. F., Román-Caballero, R., Vadillo, M. A., Holgado, D., Luque-Casado, A., Perakakis, P., & Sanabria, D. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01554-4 · Cited by 157
Zhang, M., Jia, J., Yang, Y., Zhang, L., & Wang, X. (2023) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2023.102116 · Cited by 157
Contreras-Osorio, F., Campos-Jara, C., Martínez-Salazar, C., Chirosa-Ríos, L., & Martínez-García, D. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11060755 · Cited by 86
Ferrer-Uris, B., Ramos, M. A., Busquets, A., & Angulo-Kinzler, R. M. (2022) · AIMS neuroscience · doi:10.3934/neuroscience.2022009 · Cited by 95
Active School Breaks and Students’ Attention: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Infantes‐Paniagua, Á., Silva, A. F., Ramírez‐Campillo, R., Sarmento, H., González-Férnandez, F. T., González‐Víllora, S., & Clemente, F. M. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11060675 · Cited by 107
“The inconsistent results presented in the literature could perhaps be explained by differences in the factors considered from a study design, how attention is measured, or the inclusion of samples representing different age groups [6] or cardiovascular fitness levels [6], just as happens in research on overall cogniti…”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Haverkamp, B. F., Wiersma, R., Vertessen, K., van Ewijk, H., Oosterlaan, J., & Hartman, E.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Curium-LUMC, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center, Oegstgeest, The Netherlands
- Emma Kinderziekenhuis (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Haverkamp, Barbara Franca
- Venue
- Journal of Sports Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-08-12
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 2637-2660
- ISSN
- 0264-0414 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-447X
- OpenAlex
- W3048761467
- Semantic Scholar
- 84af0bb97019f8320f093d24b71e97dd96158713
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 129
- Citations by year
- 2026: 40 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 2.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Sports Sciences (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Nationaal Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek (405-16-411)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Children's Physical and Motor Development
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Physical Education and Training Studies
- Keywords
- physical activity interventions, cognitive outcomes, academic performance, adolescents, young adults, processing speed, attention, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, working memory, language skills, sex differences
- MeSH terms
- Academic Performance, Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Cognition, Humans, Language, Memory, Short-Term, Exercise, Young Adult, Executive Function
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
