What is the association between sedentary behaviour and cognitive function? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The increasing rate of all-cause dementia worldwide and the lack of effective pharmaceutical treatments emphasise the value of lifestyle approaches as prevention strategies. Emerging evidence suggests sedentary behaviour is associated with impaired cognitive function. A better understanding of this association would significantly add to our knowledge of how to best promote healthy cognitive ageing. Thus, we conducted a systematic review ascertaining the contribution of sedentary behaviour towards associated changes in cognitive function over the adult lifespan. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of peer-reviewed literature examining the association of sedentary behaviour with cognition. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, EBSCO and Web of Science, and reference lists of relevant reviews on sedentary behaviour. Two independent reviewers extracted (1) study characteristics and (2) information regarding measurement of sedentary behaviour and cognitive function. We also assessed study quality using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We limited search results to adults ≥40 years, observational studies published in English since 1990 and studies investigating associations between sedentary behaviour and cognitive function. RESULTS: 8 studies examined the association of sedentary behaviour with cognitive function. 6 studies reported significant negative associations between sedentary behaviour and cognitive function. 8 different measures of sedentary behaviour and 13 different measures of cognitive function were used across all eight studies. SUMMARY: Sedentary behaviour is associated with lower cognitive performance, although the attributable risk of sedentary time to all-cause dementia incidence is unclear. Our systematic review provides evidence that limiting sedentary time and concomitantly engaging in regular moderate-to-vigorous physical activity may best promote healthy cognitive ageing.
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 | 0.011 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".