ArticleAIMS public health2026
A sex-specific difference in smartphone addiction, physical activity level, and cognitive functions among university students.
Article in AIMS public health, 2026. 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
This study aimed to investigate the sex-specific differences in smartphone addiction, physical activity levels, and cognitive functions among university students. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 256 university students aged 18-25. Participants completed questionnaires using the Smartphone Addiction Scale Short Version to assess their level of smartphone addiction. The working memory and selective attention domains of cognitive function were evaluated, and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to determine participants' self-reported physical activity levels. The results revealed significant sex differences, with male students exhibiting higher levels of smartphone addiction (male = 46.42 ± 9.37; female = 38.27 ± 7.63) and greater physical activity (male = 3752 ± 1876; female = 3447 ± 1748) than their female counterparts. Additionally, female students demonstrated superior performance on selective attention tasks, including reaction time (female = 463.00 ± 50.53; male = 457.34 ± 59.31) and accuracy (female = 92.26 ± 6.53; male = 89.60 ± 8.39) across varied conditions, whereas no significant sex differences were observed in working memory or overall reaction time. These findings suggest that sex-specific factors may influence differences between male and female participants in smartphone use, cognitive function, and physical activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.