Playing a musical instrument and the risk of dementia among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Engaging in leisure activities was suggested to protect older adults from dementia. However, the association between playing a musical instrument and the risk of dementia is not well-established. This study aimed to investigate this association in older adults using a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Methods Pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of having dementia for older adults playing a musical instrument were calculated using the random-effects model. We performed the I 2 statistic to detect heterogeneity across studies and the test for funnel plot asymmetry to assess publication bias. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using the modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results A total of three prospective cohort studies were found eligible: two from the U.S. and one from Japan. Playing a musical instrument, in the meta-analysis, was significantly associated with a decreased risk of dementia (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.98) among older adults. No signs of significant heterogeneity across studies ( I 2 = 23.3% and p-heterogeneity = 0.27) or publication bias (z= -1.3 and p-publication bias = 0.18) were identified. Conclusion Playing a musical instrument was associated with a decreased risk of dementia among older adults. Older adults should be encouraged to engage in leisure activities, especially playing musical instruments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".