Association between sedentary behavior and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the association between sedentary behavior (SB) and dementia among the general adult population. We queried PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library from their inception to November 3, 2024. Two authors independently extracted the data from included studies, including hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), to assess the risk of dementia among individuals with SB. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. We used a random effects model if I2 > 50% and p < 0.10; otherwise, a fixed-effect model was used. In addition, we assessed publication bias by funnel plot, and performed leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. We included ten cohort studies, nine of which were of high quality. Our analysis demonstrated an increased risk of dementia among individuals with SB (pooled HRs, 1.17; 95% CIs, 1.06–1.29). Individuals with high sedentary time (ST), defined by TV viewing, demonstrated a 31% increased risk of dementia compared to those with low ST (pooled HRs, 1.31; 95% CIs, 1.25–1.37). No significantly increased risk for dementia was observed among individuals with high computer usage time (pooled HRs, 0.89; 95% CIs, 0.73–1.09). However, when SB was defined by other methods, individuals with high ST demonstrated a 33% increased risk of dementia compared to those with low ST (pooled HRs, 1.33; 95% CIs, 1.25–1.42). SB increases the risk of dementia, but SB defined by computer usage time has not shown this association. CRD42023493109.
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) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".