Effect of interval training on cognitive functioning and cerebral oxygenation in obese patients: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a 4-month high-intensity interval training programme on cognitive functioning, cerebral oxygenation, central haemodynamic and cardiometabolic parameters and aerobic capacity in obese patients. METHODS: Cognitive functioning, cerebral oxygenation, central haemodynamic, cardiometabolic and exercise para-meters were measured before and after a 4-month high-intensity interval training programme in 6 obese patients (mean age 49 years (standard deviation 8), fat mass percentage 31 ± 7%). RESULTS: Body composition (body mass, total and trunk fat mass, waist circumference) and fasting insulin were improved after the programme (p < 0.05). V. O2 and power output at ventilatory threshold and peak power output were improved after the programme (p < 0.05). Cognitive functioning, including short-term and verbal memory, attention and processing speed, was significantly improved after training (p < 0.05). Cerebral oxygen extraction was also improved after training (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: These preliminary results indicate that a 4-month high-intensity interval training programme in obese patients improved both cognitive functioning and cere-bral oxygen extraction, in association with improved exercise capacity and body composition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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, 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".