No Reduction in C-Reactive Protein following a 12-Month Randomized Controlled Trial of Exercise in Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Low-grade systemic inflammation is suggested to play a role in the development of several chronic diseases including cancer. Higher levels of physical activity and lower adiposity have been associated with reduced levels of markers of systemic inflammation, such as C-reactive protein (CRP); however, reductions in CRP have not been consistently observed in randomized controlled trials of exercise. PURPOSE: To examine the effect of a 12-month aerobic exercise intervention on CRP levels in men and women. METHODS: One hundred two men and 100 women, sedentary and of ages 40 to 75 years, with mean body mass index (BMI) of 29.9 and 28.7 kg/m(2), respectively, were randomly assigned to a 12-month moderate-to-vigorous aerobic exercise intervention (6 d/wk, 60 min/d, 60-85% maximum heart rate) or control group. Fasting blood samples were collected at baseline and at 12 months. CRP levels were measured by high-sensitivity latex-enhanced nephelometry. RESULTS: At baseline, CRP was 1.16 and 2.11 mg/L for men and women, respectively, and CRP was correlated with percent body fat (r = 0.48, P < or =0.001), BMI (r = 0.37, P < or = 0.001), and aerobic fitness (r = -0.49, P < or = 0.001). No intervention effects were observed for CRP in men or women, or when stratified by baseline BMI (<30 versus > or =30 kg/m(2)), baseline CRP (<3 versus > or =3 mg/L), or change in body weight, body composition, or aerobic fitness. CONCLUSION: A 12-month moderate-to-vigorous aerobic exercise intervention did not affect CRP levels in previously sedentary men or women with average-risk CRP values at baseline.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".