INVESTIGATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HABITUAL ACTIVITY AND COGNITIVE DOMAINS AMONG PEOPLE LIVING WITH DEMENTIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Habitual activity preserves cognitive function in people without dementia, but the relationship between habitual activity and cognitive domains among people living with dementia is unclear. The purpose of this study was to explore the association between habitual activity and cognition domains among people living with dementia. Participants living with dementia in residential care facilities (complete case analysis: n=24/42) completed a battery of cognitive tests (global cognition: Montreal Cognitive Assessment; executive function: Trail-Making Test, Digit Span Forward Test; perception and orientation: Benton Judgement of Line Orientation Test; language: Boston Naming Test; learning and memory: Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test; complex attention: Digit Symbol Substitution Test). Participants wore an actigraphy monitor on their non-dominant wrist over seven days. We conducted a linear regression for total habitual activity (independent variable) with race (white/black), fall risk (Morse Fall Scale), and the number of comorbidities (Functional Comorbidities Index) as covariates, and cognitive tests as variables of interest. Participants were primarily male (75%), white (87.5%), and 50% had unspecified dementia (Alzheimer’s disease: 33%). Greater habitual activity was associated with poorer global cognition, better executive function, and better learning and memory (ps< 0.05). Habitual activity was not related to visuospatial perception, language, or complex attention. Habitual activity may preserve executive function and learning and memory among people living with dementia. Wandering is more common in later stages of dementia, which may explain greater habitual activity observed with lower global cognition. Regularly assessing habitual activity may be useful in screening and monitoring cognitive changes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".