Relationships of accelerometer-based measured objective physical activity and sedentary behaviour with cognitive function: a comparative cross-sectional study of China’s elderly population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This study explored the effects of physical activity and sedentary behaviour on the decline of cognitive ability among the elderly. To compensate for the limitations of self-reported physical activity, objective measures were used. Methods A cross-sectional survey of 308 aged people mean 68.66 ± 5.377 years, in Nanjing, China, was conducted. Physical activity was measured using the ActiGraph GT3X+, and cognitive function was measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Results The overall participant model, adjusted for age, BMI, education, and monthly average income, found that light physical activity (β = 0.006, p < 0.01), moderate-vigorous physical activity (β = 0.068, p < 0.001), and total physical activity (β = 0.006, p < 0.01) had a significant linear relationship with cognitive ability, while sedentary time did not (β = − 0.020, p >0.05). Further, light physical activity only affects the cognitive ability of elderly females (β = 0.006, p < 0.05). There was an inverted ‘U’ association between moderate-vigorous physical activity and cognitive ability. The association models found that moderate-vigorous physical activity in the 22.13 min·day − 1 ~38.79 min·day − 1 range affected cognitive ability most beneficially, with the highest beta coefficient among all groups (β = 0.091, p < 0.05). Conclusions While physical activity can significantly improve cognitive ability among the elderly, sedentary behaviour is associated with decreased cognitive function across genders.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".