Fractal complexity of daily physical activity and cognitive function in a midlife cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High stability of fluctuation in physiological patterns across fixed time periods suggest healthy fractal complexity, while greater randomness in fluctuation patterns may indicate underlying disease processes. The importance of fractal stability in mid-life remains unexplored. We quantified fractal regulation patterns in 24-h accelerometer data and examined associations with cognitive function in midlife. Data from 5097 individuals (aged 46) from the 1970 British Cohort Study were analyzed. Participants wore thigh-mounted accelerometers for seven days and completed cognitive tests (verbal fluency, memory, processing speed; derived composite z-score). Detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) was used to examine temporal correlations of acceleration magnitude across 25 time scales (range: 1 min-10 h). Linear regression examined associations between DFA scaling exponents (DFAe) and each standardised cognitive outcome. DFAe was normally distributed (mean ± SD: 0.90 ± 0.06; range: 0.72-1.25). In males, a 0.10 increase in DFAe was associated with a 0.30 (95% Confidence Interval: 0.14, 0.47) increase in composite cognitive z-score in unadjusted models; associations were strongest for verbal fluency (0.10 [0.04, 0.16]). Associations remained in fully-adjusted models for verbal fluency only (0.06 [0.00, 0.12]). There was no association between DFA and cognition in females. Greater fractal stability in men was associated with better cognitive function. This could indicate mechanisms through which fractal complexity may scale up to and contribute to cognitive clinical endpoints.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".