P1–250: Occupational physical activity and risk of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to previous studies manual work or low lifetime occupational attainment may be associated with higher incidence of Alzheimer disease (AD). Prospective analyses of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) have shown that compared with no activity, regular physical activity was associated with lower risks of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD. To evaluate the association between a physically active or inactive longest lifetime occupation and the risk of MCI or AD while taking into account leisure physical activity. The CSHA is a large longitudinal study of the epidemiology of dementia on a representative sample of 10,263 people drawn from 36 urban and surrounding rural areas in 1991, aged 65 or over. Screening for dementia and subsequent rigorous diagnosis of subjects resulted in the assessment of prevalent cases with MCI or AD. Subjects were re–evaluated after five and 10 years to identify incident cases of MCI and AD. Information on personal, medical and environmental risk factors was collected at baseline, including a lifetime occupational history, with occupations coded according to the Canadian 1980 Standard Occupational Code. An expert panel classified occupational physical activity (OPA) as high, low or uncertain. Among subjects free from MCI (n =3578) or AD (n = 4109) at baseline, there were 682 incident cases of MCI and 362 incident cases of AD during the 10–year follow–up. The association between OPA and MCI or AD was assessed using Cox regression models with delayed entry and age as the time–scale while adjusting for education, sex and leisure physical activity. Compared to subjects with low OPA, subjects with high OPA have an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 1.17 (95% CI: 0.92–1.48) and 1.45 (95% CI: 1.05–2.01) for MCI and AD respectively. The adjusted RR for MCI is 0.94 (95% CI:0.62–1.42) among women and 1.42 (95% CI: 1.04–1.96) among men. Occupations with a higher level of OPA seem to be associated with an increased risk of AD and, among men, of MCI. These occupations may expose workers to higher levels of environmental toxins or be intellectually less complex.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".