F1‐03‐03: Impact of a 12‐week exercise intervention on non‐cognitive outcomes in sedentary elders with cognitive complaints or mild cognitive impairment: Findings from the MAX Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing attention is focused on developing mental and physical activity interventions for those with subjective memory complaints or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to reduce the risk of dementia. Such interventions might also benefit other outcomes including sleep, depression, and quality of life. The MAX (Mental Activity and eXercise) Trial was a randomized, controlled trial in which 126 sedentary elders with cognitive complaints or MCI were randomized to 12-weeks of physical activity (aerobic exercise vs. stretching, 60 minutes, 3 days/week) and mental activity (computer training vs. educational DVDs, 60 minutes, 3 days/week) using a factorial design. Cognitive outcomes have previously been reported. Briefly, cognitive outcomes improved significantly in all groups, and improvements were greater with computer training than educational DVDs in subjects with MCI. Here, we examine the impact of the intervention on non-cognitive outcomes including sleep quality (Sleep Disorders Questionnaire), health-related quality of life (SF-12), and depressive symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale). Participants had a mean age of 73 years; 63% were female and 35% were Hispanic or non-white. Among study participants with poor sleep at baseline, sleep quality improved significantly more (P = 0.02) in the stretching group (12.0 to 8.8 points, P <0.001) than the aerobic group (12.1 to 11.5 points, P = 0.13). Participants also experienced significant improvements in physical health-related quality of life (47.5 to 49.0 points, P = 0.05) and were more likely to report no depressive symptoms (24% to 38%, P = 0.008), but there were no differences in these outcomes between intervention groups. Results were similar in subjects with and without MCI. In sedentary older adults with cognitive complaints or MCI, 12 weeks of either aerobic or stretching exercises significantly improved quality of life and depressive symptoms; in addition, in those with poor sleep, stretching was more effective than aerobic exercise for improving sleep. Exercise, whether aerobic or stretching and toning, appears to have wide-ranging beneficial effects and should be encouraged in sedentary elders with cognitive complaints or MCI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".