Is physical activity a potential preventive factor for vascular dementia? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical exercise has several beneficial effects, including reduced risk for Alzheimer's disease. Although several studies of potential risk factors for vascular dementia (VaD) exist, including physical activity, the studies have usually included few participants and there are no meta-analyses addressing this key topic. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched using the key words 'physical exercise' 'activity' or 'walking' in combination with 'dementia' and 'vascular dementia'. Potentially relevant studies were assessed and summarised by two of the authors, and longitudinal studies with operationalized definition of physical activity providing risk for VaD in both groups were included in the meta-analysis using pooled estimates from a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 24 longitudinal studies, including 1378 patients with VaD, were included in the review. The majority of individual studies did not report significant associations. Five studies fulfilled criteria for meta-analysis, including 10,108 non-demented control subjects and 374 individuals with VaD. The meta-analysis demonstrated a significant association between physical exercise and a reduced risk of developing VaD: OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.42-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is evidence supporting the hypothesis that physical activity is likely to prevent the development of VaD, and should be highlighted as part of secondary prevention programmes in people at risk for cerebrovascular disease.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".