MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206551386 · doi:10.1002/alz.055150

The relationship between cognitive and social leisure activities across the lifespan and neural markers for brain health: A systematic literature review

2021· article· en· W4206551386 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lukas Duffner, Nathan De Jong, Walter H. Backes, Jacobus F.A. Jansen, Marjolein de Vugt, Kay Deckers, Sebastian Koehler

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewCINAHLPsychologyObservational studyCochrane LibraryClinical psychologyAssociation (psychology)MEDLINECritical appraisalCognitionMeta-analysisMedicineGerontologyPsychiatryPathologyAlternative medicinePsychological interventionPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Cognitive and social leisure activities (CA/SA) as well as social network size (SNS) have been associated with performance on cognitive tasks and lower dementia risk. However, the neural mechanisms behind these associations remain unclear. Therefore, this systematic literature review aims at summarizing the available evidence on these associations across the adult lifespan. Method MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials were searched for potential publications until January 2021. Eligible studies included those with cognitively normal individuals older than 18 years, and assessed the direct association between CA/SA or SNS and brain structure. CA/SA were defined as those cognitively and/or socially stimulating activities being performed for the sake of pleasure. Eligible outcome measures included magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of macro (grey/white matter volumes) and micro (diffusion tensor imaging) structure, or computerized tomography (CT). Both observational and (quasi)experimental designs were included. Study‐quality was assessed using the NIH tool for study quality appraisal and the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A full protocol is available in PROSPERO (CRD42020193278). Result 6115 unique abstracts were identified and screened by two independent raters. Sixty‐six full‐text articles were retained for further appraisal, of which thirty‐five (0.6%) were included for qualitative analysis. Of those, 20 cross‐sectional, 4 cohort and 3 experimental studies investigated the association between CA/SA and brain structure. Eight cross‐sectional studies investigated the relationship between social network size and brain structure. All studies included in this review used structural MRI (3 used DTI) as outcome measure. In the majority of studies, CA/SA and SNS showed associations with structural brain MRI markers. Detailed results of this ongoing review and possible meta‐analysis will be presented. Conclusion CA and SA are associated with structural MRI markers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→