The prospective association between physical activity and memory in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Physical activity is a recommended health behaviour and there exists a literature base linking physical activity and cognition in mid‐life and older adulthood. Yet, longitudinal study of physical activity and cognition is needed in order to account for determinants of health which may affect participation in physical activity and attenuate previously observed relationships. The aim of this study was to examine the longitudinal relationship between different intensities of physical activity and memory at first three‐year follow‐up in a large prospective survey of Canadian adults. Method Data were drawn from the Canadian Longitudinal Study of Aging (CLSA), an ongoing prospective cohort study. Participants self‐reported a number of health behaviours, health‐professional diagnosed conditions, and social and demographic factors. Physical activity was measured using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). Past‐week activity was classified according to type of intensity (e.g., strenuous) and duration (e.g., minutes [mins] and hours [hrs]). Memory was assessed using the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, with higher scores reflective of better memory performance. We used linear regression modelling to examine associations between physical activity at baseline and memory three‐years later, after adjustment for an array of potential confounders. Result In fully adjusted models, the pattern of findings across type of activity and duration was mixed. We observed a protective relationship of physical activity at some levels of walking (30mins to <1 hr: b= 0.14, p=0.021, 1hr to <2 hrs: b= 0.14, p=0.029), light activity (1hr to <2 hrs: b= 0.17, p=0.035, 2 hours or more: b= 0.15, p=0.050), moderate activity (1hr to <2 hrs: b= 0.38, p<0.001, 2 hours or more: b= 0.35, p<0.001), and strenuous activity (1hr to <2 hrs: b= 0.18, p=0.004). No prospective relationships were observed for strength‐based activities. Conclusion Certain types of physical activity were associated with better memory at follow‐up. On average, activities within the 1 to 2 hour range were most beneficial. Potential benefits of physical activity on memory may only be realized after other health considerations are first considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".