ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Psychological and technological predictors of the physical activity intention-behavior gap: an explainable machine learning analysis.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Intention is widely regarded as the most proximal predictor of behavior. But, physical activity (PA) intentions do not invariably translate into actual exercise behavior, leaving a intention-behavior (I-B) gap. The study integrates psychological and technological frameworks to examine the mechanisms that moderate the PA I-B gap. Methods: Unlike traditional dichotomous measures of the PA I-B gap, this study employs baseline correction to derive a standardized continuous measure that quantifies the magnitude of the gap. Using survey data from 1,334 Chinese adults, we combined the Health Belief Model and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology within an explainable machine-learning framework to identify important predictors and their non-linear interactions. Results: The machine learning based optimal XGBoost model (R Conclusion: Psychological cognition and smart sports tools jointly predict the PA I-B gap. The study's conclusions are constrained by its reliance on self-reported measures and its cross-sectional design. Future research should adopt longitudinal or experimental protocols, supplemented by objective data from wearable devices, to delineate causal pathways and illuminate the finer mechanisms underlying the gap.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.