Genetic insights into the causal relationship between physical activity and cognitive functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Physical activity and cognitive functioning are strongly intertwined. However, the causal relationships underlying this association are still unclear. Physical activity can enhance brain functions, but healthy cognition may also promote engagement in physical activity. Here, we assessed the bidirectional relationships between physical activity and general cognitive functioning using Latent Heritable Confounder Mendelian Randomization (LHC-MR). Association data were drawn from two large-scale genome-wide association studies (UK Biobank and COGENT) on accelerometer-measured moderate, vigorous, and average physical activity (N = 91,084) and cognitive functioning (N = 257,841). After Bonferroni correction, we observed significant LHC-MR associations suggesting that increased fraction of both moderate (b = 0.32, CI95% = [0.17,0.47], P = 2.89e − 05) and vigorous physical activity (b = 0.22, CI95% = [0.06,0.37], P = 0.007) lead to increased cognitive functioning. In contrast, we found no evidence of a causal effect of average physical activity on cognitive functioning, and no evidence of a reverse causal effect (cognitive functioning on any physical activity measures). These findings provide new evidence supporting a beneficial role of moderate and vigorous physical activity (MVPA) on cognitive functioning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".