MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resistance Training And Executive Functioning Among Senior Women

2009· article· en· W2092987348 on OpenAlexaff
Teresa Liu‐Ambrose, Lindsay S. Nagamatsu, Maureen C. Ashe, Karim M. Khan, B. Lynn Beattie, Peter Graf

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialAerobic exercisePhysical therapyMedicineWaistNeuropsychologyExecutive functionsPsychologyCognitionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationObesitySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of prospective intervention studies of exercise and cognition to date have focused on aerobic-based exercise training. Few have examined whether other types of exercise training, such as resistance training (RT), may also benefit cognition. PURPOSE: To compare the effect of once-weekly progressive RT (1× RT) and twice-weekly progressive RT (2× RT) to twice-weekly balance and tone exercises (2× BAT) on executive functions among senior women aged 65 to 75 years. METHODS: We conducted a 12-month randomized trial of exercise in 155 senior women. Participants were randomized at baseline to either: 1) 1× RT; 2) 2× RT; or 3) 2× BAT. The protocol for the RT groups was progressive and high-intensity in nature with the aims of increasing muscle strength in the extremities and trunk. Both a Keiser® Pressurized Air system (Keiser Corporation, Fresno, CA, USA) and free weights were used to provide the training stimulus. The BAT program consisted of stretching exercises, general posture education, and toning exercises with body weight. We assessed three key executive functions - set shifting, response inhibition, and working memory - using standard neuropsychological tests at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The three key executive functions measured at 6 and 12 months were compared by forced entry multiple linear regression analysis, with baseline scores, baseline global cognitive function, baseline waist circumference, and experimental group included as independent variables in the models. RESULTS: Of the 155 participants assessed and randomized at baseline, 140 returned at 6 months, and 129 returned at 12 months. There were no significant between-group differences in set shifting or working memory at 6 or 12months. There were no significant between-group differences in response inhibition at 6 months. However, there were significant between-group differences in response inhibition at 12 months. Specifically, both the 1XRT and 2XRT groups significant improved compared with the 2X BAT group (P < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Executive functions are important to seniors' ability to live independently. Our results suggest that once- or twice-weekly RT may benefit the specific executive process of response inhibition. However, a training duration greater than six months is required to realize this benefit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207