Physical Activity and Risk of Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in Elderly Persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Dementia is common, costly, and highly age related. Little attention has been paid to the identification of modifiable lifestyle habits for its prevention. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between physical activity and the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: Data come from a community sample of 9008 randomly selected men and women 65 years or older, who were evaluated in the 1991-1992 Canadian Study of Health and Aging, a prospective cohort study of dementia. Of the 6434 eligible subjects who were cognitively normal at baseline, 4615 completed a 5-year follow-up. Screening and clinical evaluations were done at both waves of the study. In 1996-1997, 3894 remained without cognitive impairment, 436 were diagnosed as having cognitive impairment-no dementia, and 285 were diagnosed as having dementia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incident cognitive impairment and dementia by levels of physical activity at baseline. RESULTS: Compared with no exercise, physical activity was associated with lower risks of cognitive impairment, Alzheimer disease, and dementia of any type. Significant trends for increased protection with greater physical activity were observed. High levels of physical activity were associated with reduced risks of cognitive impairment (age-, sex-, and education-adjusted odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.83), Alzheimer disease (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.90), and dementia of any type (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.98). CONCLUSION: Regular physical activity could represent an important and potent protective factor for cognitive decline and dementia in elderly persons.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".