Individual sedentary activities and cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe influence of lifestyle factors on cognitive health, particularly among middle-aged and older adults, has garnered significant attention in gerontology and cognitive neuroscience. Currently, over 55 million people worldwide are living with dementia, including Alzheimer's disease with nearly 10 million new cases annually. Although sedentary behavior has been associated with cognitive decline, these studies often treat sitting time as a homogeneous entity, without considering the specific nature of sedentary activities.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to examine associations of individual sitting activities with cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults.MethodsData were searched using eight electronic databases (EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Medline, SPORTDiscus, PubMed, and Scopus) from inception to September 2024. Qualitative studies, reviews, conference abstracts, theses, and book chapters were excluded. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the QualSyst tool.ResultsA total of 85 studies (n = 1,575,657) were included in this review. Of the 43 studies examining television viewing, 28 (65%) reported a negative association between prolonged television viewing and cognitive function. Conversely, among the 58 studies that included active sedentary activities, only five (8.6%) reported negative associations.ConclusionsThe cognitive effects of sedentary behavior depend on the type of activity performed. Promoting cognitively engaging sedentary activities may support healthy cognitive aging, while excessive passive behaviors may increase risk of cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease. Future research should focus on further clarifying the mechanisms behind these associations and explore interventions to enhance cognitive health in aging populations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".