Investigating the relationship between aerobic activity and cognition in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are becoming more prevalent with the growing aging population. Physical exercise may improve aspects of cognitive function to decrease disease risk; however, the effects of moderator variables, such as exercise intensity, are still under investigation. We examined the dose-response relationship between aerobic exercise and cognitive function in sedentary older adults. Fourteen participants were randomized into a high-intensity, moderate-intensity, or low-intensity exercise group. Each group received supervised training three times per week for 12 weeks. Cognitive performance was assessed at baseline and at study completion to determine changes in executive function, reaction time, and memory. It was hypothesized that exercise would affect cognition in a dose-dependent manner, such that exercising at a higher aerobic intensity would elicit greater benefits for cognition. However, our preliminary data suggest a task-dependent dose-response relationship. High-intensity exercise led to the greatest improvement in performance on executive function tasks, moderate-intensity exercise led to the greatest improvement in memory, and low-intensity exercise led to the greatest reduction in reaction time. The results suggest that the optimal intensity of aerobic exercise for maximal cognitive benefit may depend on the cognitive domain. The examined cognitive domains recruit different brain regions for processing and physical exercise may elicit different mechanisms of action on the different regions of the brain. This research will inform physical activity guidelines for brain health to help reduce the risk of Alzheimer's disease and 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".