P2‐585: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE, SEDENTARY BEHAVIOR AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVEL OF BRAZILIAN ELDERLY WOMEN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity (PA) is a behavioral therapy that has protective effects on cognition, as opposed to sedentary behavior (SB) that can lead to cognitive impairment. However, it is unclear what the influence of different levels of PA and SB on elderly cognition is. The objective was to analyze the association and influence of daily SB and the level of PA on the cognitive performance of the elderly. Descriptive cross-sectional study with 147 sedentary elderly women (60 to 70 years). Anthropometric and socioeconomic measures were collected. The Actigraph accelerometer was used for seven consecutive days on the dominant side waist for daily SB analysis, PA level (total number of counts in the week, daily and hourly caloric expenditure and METS), which was also measured by the Baecke Questionnaire Modified for the Elderly (QBMI). Cognitive performance was assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The level of PA and SC were analyzed through correlation and multiple linear regression. Participants with cognitive impairment (n=53) had lower levels of PA and higher SB than participants without cognitive impairment (n=94). There was correlation between accelerometer and MoCA: SB and language (r=-0.786/p=-0.024); (r=0.441/p=0.022) and total number of counts in the week with visuospatial ability (r=0.439/p=0.030); moderate ACMO activity (r=0.218/p=0.039). Regarding QBMI, Leisure with daily caloric expenditure (r=0.318/p=0.003); Leisure and Mets (r=0.344/p=0.009); leisure and Moderate Activity (r=0.306/p=0.003); Leisure and caloric expenditure per hour (r=0.423/p=0.005). In the linear regression the dependent variable was the MoCA, showing influence with caloric expenditure per day (β=0.503), SB (β=-0.375), leisure activity (β=0.332), years of studies (β=0.234), moderate activity (β=0.254), light activity (β=0.216) and vigorous activity (β=0.111).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".