Exploring the association of early life physical activity and risk of dementia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical activity has been included in the list of twelve modifiable risk factors for dementia, despite conflicting results from observational and controlled studies. In particular it is not clear whether physical inactivity near the time of dementia diagnosis is a consequence or cause of dementia. We review all available studies reporting the possible association between having engaged in PA before 60 years of age and the risk of dementia. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic review based on the methodology reported in the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews and following the PRISMA statement. Bibliographic searches were carried out on the databases PubMed, ISI Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Further references were retrieved from published systematic reviews on the same topic. Included studies were assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The bibliographic search yielded 1381 records. A total of 11 studies were included. Three of the included studies were case control studies, while the remaining 8 were cohort studies The overall quality of included studies was high. However, clinical criteria for the diagnosis of dementia, criteria to define and measure and PA and time-reference of exposure were heterogeneous, with some studies considering specific age range of exposure, and other reports dealing with more generic "adult age." CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether PA in early life may affect the incidence of dementia in later life. Studies in this field are very complicated and recognizing the impact of PA in early life given all the confounding factors is very difficult. Further studies are warranted. In these studies, it will be crucial to define the type, quantity and intensity of PA as well as to stratify analysis by sex, cultures and social classes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".