Use of Wearable Technology for Measuring and Characterizing Sedentary Behavior in People with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sedentary behavior (SB) is a critical, modifiable risk factor for adverse health outcomes. Evidence suggests that SB is higher among individuals with cognitive impairment relative to their cognitively healthy peers. However, the nature and extent of SB across cognitive impairments remains unclear, largely due to the reliance on self-report data and the lack of synthesized evidence from more accurate methodology, such as wearable devices. Wearable device-based methodologies offer a reliable means of capturing SB in real-world settings, circumventing the recall bias inherent to self-report methods. Continuous remote monitoring of SB, via wearable devices, may provide nuanced insights important for understanding SB's contribution to cognitive impairment and health consequences. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to synthesize evidence on the volume, patterns, and variability of SB across cognitive impairment and critically appraise the wearable device-based methodology used to capture SB in this population. METHODS: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched 5 databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science) up to January 2025 for peer-reviewed English-language studies using wearable devices to measure SB in community-dwelling or aged residential care residents aged 50 years or older with cognitive impairment (PROSPERO: CRD42024616523). Study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Data were extracted on SB outcomes (eg, volume, pattern, and variability) and methodological characteristics (eg, device type, placement, SB classification/processing, and its corresponding validation). RESULTS: From 2824 screened records, 17 studies (2016-2025) were included. Most studies (n=11, 65%) were of "good" quality (scoring ≥5 on bias assessment). Synthesis revealed inconsistent evidence for differences in SB volume across cognitive impairment. However, individuals with dementia consistently exhibited a unique SB pattern, engaging in significantly fewer but longer sedentary bouts than other forms of cognitive impairment and cognitively intact controls. All (n=17, 100%) studies used volume metrics to describe SB, followed by pattern metrics (n=7, 41%); only 1 study reported on SB variability. Methodological appraisal found significant heterogeneity: 13 different device models across 6 body placements were used. Most studies quantified SB using count-based thresholds (counts per minute), which were largely unvalidated in cognitively impaired or older adult populations. CONCLUSIONS: This review found that participants with dementia consistently exhibited a unique pattern of SB compared to other forms of cognitive impairment and healthy controls, while evidence for differences in SB volume was inconsistent. This may indicate that differences in SB volume are not inherent to dementia pathology but may be mediated by other factors, such as neuropsychiatric symptoms or environmental influences. Furthermore, methodological heterogeneity and unvalidated thresholds were observed throughout the review, highlighting a need for standardized protocols to enhance the validity and clinical applicability of future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024616523; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024616523.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
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 | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".