Relationships of Cognitive Function With Subsequent Device‐Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Time in Healthy Individuals and Those With Bipolar Disorder: Findings From the <scp>UK</scp> Biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In bipolar disorder (BD), physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are prevalent and have been linked to BD's cognitive symptoms, although the directionality of these links is not clear. This proof-of-concept study examined whether cognitive function during mid- and later-life was prospectively related to physical activity and sedentary time, and whether the association differed in presence or extent between those with BD and healthy controls. METHODS: Relevant UK Biobank data were available for 646 BD participants and 18,041 psychiatrically healthy controls, aged 40-69 years at baseline. Cognition was assessed during a baseline assessment, and wrist-worn accelerometry data were collected at a follow-up assessment 2.8-6.6 years later. Regression analyses examined prospective relationships of global cognition, diagnostic group, and their interaction, with physical activity (total, light, and moderate to vigorous) and sedentary time. RESULTS: Baseline cognitive function was inversely associated with light physical activity (coeff. = -5.64, 95% CI: -6.30 to -4.98) and positively associated with sedentary time (coeff. = 5.17, 95% CI: 4.48-5.86) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (coeff. = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28-0.68) at follow-up. Observed effect sizes were small but significant. In general, associations were not moderated by age or diagnostic group. CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides preliminary evidence that cognitive function may influence subsequent physical activity and sedentary time similarly in those with BD and healthy controls; however, further research is needed to confirm and further explore this findings.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".