P3‐307: Physical activity and cognition: Effect at mid‐life versus late life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most studies, people who are physically active at mid-life or late life have lower risk of late life cognitive impairment. However, research has not examined how physical activity is related to cognition at mid-life. It is possible that physical activity may augment cognition at mid-life, thus offering a cognitive reserve to protect against future cognitive decline. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between self-reported physical activity and cognitive performance at mid-life (47-59 years) and late life (=60 years) in the Healthy Heart, Healthy Brain (H3B) study. The 1205 participants in the H3B study self-reported weekly physical activity using a modified Paffenbarger questionnaire. Caloric expenditure was estimated based on duration and intensity of physical activity. Participants were dichotomized into those who met the American College of Sports Medicine guidelines (1000 kcal/week) and those who did not. Cognitive function, as assessed using the Modified Mini-Mental Examination (3MS), was normalized using the logarithmic function. The relationship between physical activity and cognitive function at mid-life and late life was assessed using linear regression models. In unadjusted linear regression analyses, exercise was positively associated with cognitive performance in the H3B study (ß: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.20, 1.16). In adjusted, age-stratified analyses, high exercise was associated with better cognitive performance in late life (ß: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.24, 1.90) but not in mid-life (ß: -0.15, 95% CI: -0.55, -0.24). This was in contrast to higher vascular risk, which was associated with worse cognition at younger ages (ß: -0.50, 95% CI: -0.89, -0.11) but not older ages (ß: 0.09, 95% CI: -0.59, 0.78). In this study, physical activity was positively associated with cognitive performance in late life but not at mid-life. This suggests that physical activity does not protect against late life cognitive impairment by creating a cognitive reserve to draw upon during late life decline but may rather augment active processes to protect against late life neuropathology.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".