Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div> This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the association between television watching and cognitive outcomes in adults and older adults as the current evidence is inconsistent. We searched the Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies from inception to June 30, 2024. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Dose–response and conventional meta-analyses were performed using one-stage random-effects and DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models, respectively. Our systematic review included 35 studies with 1,292,052 participants (8,572 cases of cognitive impairment), of which 28 studies were further meta-analyzed. A dose–response meta-analysis revealed a nonlinear association between time spent watching TV and an increased risk of cognitive impairment (Wald test p-value = 0.04), particularly for viewing durations of ≥4 hours per day. Additionally, watching ≥6 hours of television per day was associated with a significant decrease in cognitive score (standardized beta coefficient = −0.09; 95% CI: −0.17, −0.003; I<sup>2</sup> = 71.8%; seven studies). Also, a longer television-watching time was associated with a lower cognitive score (pooled standardized mean difference = −0.02; 95% CI: −0.03, −0.003; I<sup>2</sup> = 66.45%; six studies). Watching television for a longer period was associated with negative cognitive outcomes in adults and older adults. Further research is needed to confirm this association and elucidate the underlying biological mechanisms. </div>
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.911 | 0.034 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".