The COVID-19 pandemic's effects on cognition and 24-hour movement behaviours: Findings from the CLSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic may have negatively impacted cognition due to pandemic-associated changes in 24-h movement behaviours (i.e., physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep). Whether the pandemic's effects vary by age and sex is unclear. METHODS: We examined those participants (aged 45-85 years) of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) with complete neuropsychological measures at baseline (2011-2015), no dementia/memory disorder, and partial or complete assessments at baseline, 3-year (FU1; 2015-2018), and 6-year follow-up (FU2; 2018-2021). Participants were categorized into pre-pandemic (N = 6174) or intra-pandemic (N = 5181) cohorts by FU2 assessment timing (before/after March 11th, 2020) and stratified by baseline age/sex. Cognition was measured with reliable change indices using: the Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test, Mental Alternation Test (MAT), and animal fluency. We indexed physical activity and sedentary behaviour using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE), and self-reported restless sleep. FINDINGS: Compared with their pre-pandemic peers, intra-pandemic men aged 65-85 years had lower animal fluency (-0.40 points, 99 % CI: [-0.72, -0.07]), lower PASE (-16.48 points, 99 % CI: [-24.60, -8.36]) and 14 % higher probability of ≥4 h/day sedentary behaviour (99 % CI: [0.03, 0.26]) at FU2. Intra-pandemic women aged 65-85 years had lower MAT (-0.43 points, 99 % CI: [-0.86, -0.01]) and 12 % higher probability of ≥4 h/day sedentary behaviour (99 % CI: [0.01, 0.23]). There were no between-cohort differences for those aged 45-64 years. Pandemic-related changes in 24-h movement behaviours (FU1 to FU2) were not associated with cognitive changes, regardless of age or sex. INTERPRETATION: The pandemic's effects on cognition and 24-h movement behaviours varied by age and sex; these effects are unrelated.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".