Minimum physical activities protective against Alzheimer’s disease in late life: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: Previous studies indicate an inverse relationship between physical activity (PA) and the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Although they highlighted the health benefits of PA, the specific effects of PA in late life remain unclear, and intense PA may be challenging for older adults. Moreover, there is significant variation in how PA is assessed, including the timing and types of activities considered. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to evaluate existing literature to determine the effects of PA with an emphasis on late-life PA and the minimum levels of PA for older adults. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol utilizing the MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases, last assessed in July 2023. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were prospective cohort or interventional studies, that are written in English, and that measured PA in a cohort who did not have dementia, AD, or cognitive decline at baseline. Retrospective cohort, cross-sectional, case reports, and studies not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded. Each study was evaluated in seven domains of bias utilizing the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E) tool. RESULTS: Out of 2,322 studies screened, 17 met the inclusion criteria, including six new studies not included in the previous systematic review. This resulted in 206,463 participants from North America (United States and Canada) and Europe (Denmark, Finland, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom). Our method effectively reduced the number of duplicated studies during screenings, resulting in 92 duplications compared to 3,580 in the previous review. The risk of bias assessment in the quality of evidence was "low risk" in 13 studies and "some concerns" in four studies. Four studies assessed PA at midlife (average age, 49 years; average follow-up time, 29.2 years), 11 studies assessed PA in late life (average age, 75.9 years; average follow-up time, 5.9 years), and two assessed PA in adulthood without specification. For studies that assessed PA at midlife, 2 out of 4 (50 %) had statistically significant findings (p<0.05) for studies that assessed PA during late life, 8 out of 11 (75 %) had significant findings (p<0.05), and 2 out of 2 (100 %) of unspecified timing had significant findings (p<0.05). Our review indicated that engaging in PA at least three times per week, for at least 15 min per session, was judged to be the minimum requirement tested for protective effects against AD in late life. Potential biological mechanisms were also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Our current review supports existing evidence that PA provides significant protection against the development of AD and found that the requirement of PA may be less than the current guidelines for sufficient and meaningful protection in late life. Excitingly, any form of PA tested can be protective against the development of AD, including household activities, suggesting that a wider variety of PA can be more appropriate for late life. More standardized and detailed studies are needed to update the benefits of PA, particularly in the areas of occupational, household/transportation, and age-group activities. Further research is needed to determine the optimal PA thresholds in these groups.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».