MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550886536 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096710

Personalising exercise recommendations for brain health: considerations and future directions

2016· review· en· W2550886536 on OpenAlexaff
Cindy K. Barha, Liisa A.M. Galea, Lindsay S. Nagamatsu, Kirk I. Erickson, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCognitionPromotion (chess)MedicinePsychologyValue (mathematics)Health promotionPhysical activityCognitive declinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyGerontologyPublic healthNeuroscienceComputer scienceDiseaseNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The societal value of strategies that delay the onset and progression of dementia cannot be overstated. Physical activity-unstructured and structured-is a promising, cost-effective strategy for the promotion of brain health. However, a large degree of variation exists in its efficacy. Therefore, to increase its utility as 'medication' for healthy cognitive ageing, it is imperative to identify key moderators and mediators of the positive effects of targeted exercise training on brain health. In this commentary, we focus on the type of targeted exercise training, the determinants of individual variation, including biological sex and genotypic factors, and the mechanisms by which exercise exerts its influence on the brain. We argue that a better understanding of these factors will allow for evidence-based, personalised, tailored exercise recommendations that go beyond the one-size-fits-all approach to successfully combat dementia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations106
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207