Relationship of exercise and other risk factors to depression of Alzheimer's disease: the LASER‐AD study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression is common in Alzheimer's disease (AD; 5-35%). It is associated with increased disability, cost of care and carer burden. Exercise is known to be associated with a lower prevalence of depression across the age range but little is known about its relationship to depression in AD. AIMS: To investigate exercise and putative risk factors for depression in a community based sample of people with AD representative of the range of cognitive impairment found in the population with dementia. METHODS: Information was collected from 224 people with AD and their caregiver using standardised cognitive, psychological and behavioural instruments. Exercise levels were classified into three categories: absent, moderate, and vigorous, using the previous two weeks exercise levels to confirm regularity and recency. RESULTS: 9/51 (17.6%) depressed participants took exercise compared with 76/173 (43.9%) non-depressed [odds ratio (OR)=2.9, confidence interval (CI)=1.5-5.6, p=0.001]. Not taking part in other activities (hobbies and interests) was associated with depression but less so than lack of exercise. Independent predictors of depression were: lack of exercise (p <0.001, OR=3.4, CI = 1.7-7.2), taking cholinesterase inhibitors (p <0.05, OR=2.4, CI = 1.2-4.9) and having less involvement in hobbies or interests (p <0.05, OR = 1.2, CI = 1.0-1.5). CONCLUSION: None of the traditional risk factors for depression in older people were associated with depression in AD. Taking regular exercise may protect against depression in AD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".