Association between Lifespan Exercise Habits and Cognitive Function in Older Age: the Bunkyo Health Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Preventing or delaying the onset of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a crucial strategy for maintaining an independent life in old age (Rodakowski J et al., 2014). Exercise habits for ∼ ten years in the 50s or older were associated with preserving cognitive function (Rovio, S., et al., 2005; J Krell‐Roesch, et al., 2021). However, it is still unclear whether continuous exercise habits throughout the 50s to late life are required to prevent MCI. This study aimed to investigate the association between continuity of exercise habits from the 50s to late life and MCI in older age. Method We included 1585 participants (669 males and 916 females) aged 65 to 84 years old living in an urban area (Bunkyo Health Study). MCI was defined as the Japanese version of The Montreal Cognitive Assessment score of 22 points or less. Participants were divided into three groups based on continuity of exercise habits in each decade of the 50s to current age: never having exercise habits in their 50s to current [Never group, reference], having exercise habits in one or several of ages from 50s to current [Intermittent group], and having continuous exercise habits in all of ages [Continuous group]. The odds ratio (ORs) for the prevalence of MCI were obtained using logistic regression models while adjusting for potential confounders including age, years of education, body fat percentage, smoking history, alcohol intake, and cognition‐related diseases (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease). Result Compared with the Never group, none of the ORs for MCI were statistically significant in men (Intermittent group: ORs: 0.60, 95%CI: 0.36 – 1.02; Continuous group: ORs: 0.99, 95%CI: 0.61 – 1.63; P for trend: P = 0.93). In contrast, the ORs for MCI were significantly lower in the Continuous group in women (Intermittent group: ORs: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.47 – 1.17; Continuous group: ORs: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.29‐0.87; P for trend: P = 0.01). Conclusion More sustained exercise participation from the 50s to late life was associated with a lower prevalence of MCI in women but not in men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".