Stimulating leisure-time activities and the risk of dementia: a multi-cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stimulating activities are associated with a decreased risk of dementia. However, the extent to which this reflects a protective effect of activity or non-participation resulting from dementia is debated. We investigated the association of stimulating leisure-time activity in late adulthood with the risk of dementia across up to two decades' follow-up. METHODS: We used data from five prospective cohort studies from Finland and Sweden. Mental, social, outdoor, consumptive and physical leisure-time activities were self-reported. Incident dementia was ascertained from clinical diagnoses or healthcare and death registers. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Of the 33 263 dementia-free individuals aged ≥50 years at baseline, 1408 had dementia during a mean follow-up of 7.0 years. Active participation in mental (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.65), social (HR: 0.56 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.72), outdoor (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.85), consumptive (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.94) and physical (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.75) activity, as well as variety (HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.68) and the overall frequency of activity (HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.49) were associated with a reduced risk of dementia in <10 years' follow-up. In ≥10 years' follow-up all associations attenuated toward the null. CONCLUSION: Stimulating leisure-time activities are associated with a reduced risk of dementia in short-term but not long-term follow-up. These findings may reflect a reduction in leisure-time activity following preclinical dementia or dilution of the association over time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".