Cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults participating in synchronized swimming-exercise
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".