Actividad física y envejecimiento saludable: revisión sistemática de evidencia en cohortes prospectivas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Regular physical activity is a key determinant of overall health in adults, being associated with lower mortality and improved physical and mental functioning. Recent evidence shows benefits even at moderate levels of exercise, reinforcing its role in healthy aging. Objectives: To assess the relationship between physical activity and comprehensive health outcomes including longevity, physical and mental well-being, and successful aging in prospective cohort studies. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to July 2023. Prospective cohorts measuring physical activity (validated questionnaires, functional tests, pedometry) and reporting outcomes such as mortality, frailty, physical function, cognition, well-being, or successful aging were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and certainty of evidence was graded with GRADE. Results: Eighteen studies were included (≈180,000 participants, follow-up 2–45 years). Physical activity was associated with an 18–30% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR/OR 0.70–0.82; 95% CI) and 30% reduction in cardiovascular mortality (HR ~0.70). A 15–25% lower risk of frailty (OR 0.75–0.85) and a 20–30% increase in well-being and vitality were observed. Three studies reported a 30–60% higher likelihood of aging without disability (RR 1.3–1.6). Certainty was high for mortality and moderate for frailty, function, and well-being. Conclusions: Physical activity significantly reduces mortality and improves multiple domains of aging. Benefits are consistent at moderate levels (≈150 min/week) and show no upper harm thresholds at higher volumes.
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 | 0.099 | 0.241 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".