Sitting time, physical activity, and cognitive impairment in mid‐life adults: Findings from the Cooper Center Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Evidence suggests that prolonged sedentary time (i.e., daily sitting or reclining during waking hours) is independently related to metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes, which are risk factors for cognitive impairment. In the current study, we examined the independent and joint association of sedentary time and physical activity (PA) on the odds for cognitive impairment among community dwelling mid‐to‐later life adults. Method This cross‐sectional study included 3,780 individuals aged ≥55y, who came to the Cooper Clinic (Dallas, Texas) for preventive medicine visits (2010‐2019), and enrolled in the Cooper Center Longitudinal Study. Participants provided detailed information on their sitting habits and PA levels. Cognitive function was assessed through the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The independent and joint relations of reported sitting time (≤25%, 50% and ≥75% of the time) and PA levels (not meeting, meeting and exceeding guidelines) with cognitive impairment (MoCA score<26) was examined using multivariable logistic regression, while adjusting for potential confounders. Result Of the total analytic sample (mean age 61±6y; 71% men), 22.5% were classified as cognitively impaired. Participants sitting ≥75% of the time had significantly higher odds (OR=1.60; 95% CI 1.19‐2.17) for cognitive impairment compared to those sitting almost none of the time, irrespective of PA levels. Joint association analysis with sedentary time ≤25% and exceeding physical activity guidelines (>1000 MET min/week) as referent, showed that the highest odds for cognitive impairment were in those sitting ≥75% of the time while meeting or not meeting PA guidelines (OR=1.71 [1.14‐2.56] and 1.70 [1.22‐2.37], respectively). However, those who reported sitting 75% of the time or more had lower odds of cognitive impairment when in the exceeding physical activity strata (OR=1.48; 95%CI 1.10‐2.00; see figure). Conclusion Prolonged sitting time and insufficient physical activity might each independently increase the likelihood of cognitive impairment. Yet, engaging in extensive PA might attenuate the risk associated with prolonged sitting.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".