Cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults participating in synchronized swimming-exercise
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] The purpose of the present study was to examine cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults regularly engaging in synchronized swimming-exercise. [Subjects and Methods] Twenty-three female synchronized swimmers ranging in age from 49 to 85 years were recruited for the present study. The duration of synchronized swimming experience ranged from 1 to 39 years. The control group consisted of 36 age- and gender-matched community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults (age range: 49 to 77 years). Cognitive function was evaluated using the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) and compared between the synchronized swimmers and control participants. [Results] No significant differences in mean total MoCA-J scores were observed between the synchronized swimmers and control participants (23.2 ± 3.1 and 22.2 ± 3.6, respectively). Twenty-nine subjects in the control group and 17 in the synchronized swimming group scored below 26 on the MoCA-J, indicative of mild cognitive impairment. Significant differences in delayed recall-but not in visuospatial/executive function, naming, attention, language, abstraction, or orientation-were also observed between the two groups. [Conclusion] The results of the present study suggest that synchronized swimming has beneficial effects on cognitive function, particularly with regard to recent memory.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it