Sitting Time, Physical Activity, and Cognitive Impairment in Midlife and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study cross-sectionally examines the relations of sitting and physical activity (PA) with cognitive impairment in community-dwelling adults aged 55-87 years (n = 3,780). Multivariable logistic regression assessed independent and joint relations of sitting and PA with Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores adjusting for covariates. Sitting ≥75% of the time and not meeting PA guidelines were related to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] [1.19, 2.17]) and 27% (95% CI [1.06, 1.53]) higher odds for cognitive impairment, respectively. Stratification by age showed that sitting ≥75% of the time was associated with higher cognitive impairment odds in midlife (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; 95% CI [1.31, 2.65]), but not older adults (OR = 1.06; 95% CI [0.57, 1.95]). Joint association analysis revealed that, overall, the highest odds for cognitive impairment were in those sitting ≥75% of the time while meeting or not meeting PA guidelines (OR = 1.69, 95% CI [1.13, 2.53]; and OR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.19, 2.32], respectively). In conclusion, prolonged sitting and insufficient PA are independent risk markers for cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".