Baduanjin exercise modulates the hippocampal subregion structure in community-dwelling older adults with cognitive frailty
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Regular Baduanjin exercise intervention was proven to be beneficial in improving the cognitive ability and physical performance of older adults with different health conditions but was unclear to influence the structural plasticity of the hippocampus. This study aimed to explore the modulation of hippocampal subregions as a mechanism by which Baduanjin exercise improves cognitive frailty in older adults. Methods A total of 102 community-dwelling older adults with cognitive frailty were recruited and randomly allocated to the Baduanjin exercise training group and usual physical activity control group. The participants in the Baduanjin exercise training group participated in a 24-week Baduanjin exercise intervention program with an exercise frequency of 60 min per day, 3 days per week. Cognitive ability and physical frailty were assessed, and MRI scans were performed on all participants at baseline and after 24 weeks of intervention. The structural MRI data were processed with MRIConvert (version 2.0 Rev. 235) and FreeSurfer (version 6.0.0) software. Data analyses were performed using the independent sample t tests/Mann–Whitney U tests with the Bonferroni correction, mixed linear model, correlation, or mediation analysis by the SPSS 24.0 software (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, United States). Results After 24 weeks of intervention, a statistically significant increase was found for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores ( p = 0.002) with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.94) and the significant interaction effect ( P goup × time < 0.05), Memory Quotient (MQ) scores ( p = 0.019) with a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.688) and the significant interaction effect ( P goup × time < 0.05), and other parameters of WMS-RC test including pictures ( p = 0.042), recognition ( p = 0.017), and association ( p = 0.045) test with a medium effect size (Cohens’ d = 0.592, 0.703, and 0.581) for the Baduanjin training group, while significant decrease for the Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS) score ( p = 0.022), with a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = −0.659) and the significant interaction effect ( P goup × time < 0.05) for the Baduanjin training group. The differences in the left parasubiculum, Hippocampal Amygdala Transition Area (HATA), right Cornu Ammonis Subfield 1 (CA1) and presubiculum volumes from baseline to 24 weeks after intervention in the Baduanjin training group were significantly greater than those in the control group ( p < 0.05/12). Further analysis showed that the changes in right CA1 volume were positively correlated with the changes in MoCA and MQ scores ( r = 0.510, p = 0.015; r = 0.484, p = 0.022;), the changes in right presubiculum and left parasubiculum volumes were positively correlated with the changes in MQ ( r = 0.435, p = 0.043) and picture test scores ( r = 0.509, p = 0.016), respectively, and the changes in left parasubiculum and HATA volumes were negatively correlated with the changes in EFS scores ( r = −0.534, p = 0.011; r = −0.575, p = 0.005) in the Baduanjin training group, even after adjusting for age, sex, years of education and marital status; furthermore, the volume changes in left parasubiculum and left HATA significantly mediated the Baduanjin exercise training-induced decrease in the EFS scores ( β = 0.376, 95% CI 0.024 ~ 0.947; β = 0.484, 95% CI 0.091 ~ 0.995); the changes of left parasubiculum and right CA1 significantly mediated the Baduanjin exercise training-induced increase in the picture and MO scores ( β = −0.83, 95% CI-1.95 ~ −0.002; β = −2.44, 95% CI-5.99 ~ −0.32). Conclusion A 24-week Baduanjin exercise intervention effectively improved cognitive ability and reduced physical frailty in community-dwelling older adults with cognitive frailty, and the mechanism might be associated with modulating the structural plasticity of the hippocampal subregion.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».