Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordHealthGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

The impact of machine learning on physical activity–related health outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2742raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
455db201df92…check it

AIM: To analyze randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of machine learning (ML)-based interventions in promoting physical activity. BACKGROUND: Evidence on the effectiveness of ML-based interventions to increase physical activity from randomized controlled trials is limited. Synthesizing existing evidence is crucial for nurses to integrate such advancements into their care and implement health-promoting interventions. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials from 2013 to 2024 have been accessed b…

The gain

A meta-analysis of five randomized trials found that machine-learning-based physical activity interventions raised adults' daily step counts more than non-ML comparison programs (Hedge's g = 0.402, 95% CI 0.231-0.573).

What this doesn’t fix

Some included trials had small samples and limited diversity, few were led by nurses, and the review included only English and Turkish publications, so the effects apply to specific groups.

Sources

1 on file
  1. International Nursing Reviewdoi:10.1111/inr.70019
    Peer-reviewed2025-05-12

What the review found when it combined the studies

These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.

  • Daily step count in people receiving machine learning-based physical activity interventions compared with controls

    Hedges' g 0.402 (95% CI 0.231 to 0.573)

    499 people

    The review’s own words
    Meta-analysis revealed that ML interventions significantly increased daily step count (Hedge's g = 0.402, 95% CI: 0.231-0.573, p<0.000).

Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2742, v1: “The impact of machine learning on physical activity–related health outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2742 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 455db201df92dcbf…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv1455db201df92…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2742 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.