MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390192392 · doi:10.1002/alz.077023

Physical activity attenuates the effect of poor sleep quality on cognitive function in adults with chronic stroke

2023· article· en· W4390192392 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ryan G Stein, Ryan S. Falck, John R. Best, Jennifer C. Davis, Ging‐Yuek Robin Hsiung, Janice J. Eng, Laura E. Middleton, Peter A. Hall, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsCenter for Diagnosis and Research on Alzheimer's DiseaseUniversity of WaterlooOkanagan University CollegeVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionDementiaPhysical therapyMedicineBayesian multivariate linear regressionStroke (engine)Effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceSleep onset latencyPopulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLinear regressionPsychologySleep disorderInternal medicineDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Good sleep quality is important for cognitive health. Individuals with chronic stroke are at an increased risk for dementia and about half have insomnia. Stroke survivors are a target population in need of intervention strategies to promote sleep quality to preserve cognitive function. Physical activity is a promising approach. Hence, in this cross‐sectional analysis, we examined whether physical activity moderates the effect of poor sleep quality on cognitive function in adults with chronic stroke. Method This is a cross‐sectional analysis of baseline data acquired from 121 community‐dwelling older adults with chronic stroke (age: 70.73 ± 8.56 years; 38.30% female) enrolled in a 6‐month randomized control trial. Sleep quality was assessed with the MotionWatch8 (MW8) and physical activity was measured with the Life Space Questionnaire (LSQ; 0‐120). Participants were split into higher or lower physical activity by the median LSQ score (median = 64.00). Cognitive performance was measured with the 13‐item Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS‐Cog; 0‐85), with higher scores indicating worse cognitive performance. A linear regression was performed to first assess the independent association of MW8‐measures of sleep quality (i.e., sleep duration, fragmentation, efficiency, latency, and awakenings) and ADAS‐Cog score, after accounting for age and Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (MoCA) score. Based on the results of this linear regression, we performed a second linear regression with ADAS‐Cog score as the dependent variable, and sleep latency (minutes), physical activity level, and the interaction of sleep latency * physical activity level as independent variables, controlling for age and MoCA score. Result Greater sleep latency (β1 = 0.22, p = 0.017) was significantly associated with greater ADAS‐Cog score, after controlling for age and MoCA (R2 = .50, F(3, 105) = 34.74, p<.01). Physical activity significantly moderated the association between sleep latency (β1 = 0.38, p = 0.033) and ADAS‐Cog score (R2 = .53, F(5, 103) = 22.93, p<.01). Specifically, those in the higher physical activity group showed lower ADAS‐Cog scores with higher sleep latency (r = .67, p = .627) and those in the lower physical activity group showed higher ADAS‐Cog scores with higher sleep latency (r = .75, p = .007). Conclusion Physical activity attenuates the effect of poor sleep quality on cognitive function in adults with chronic stroke.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→