SEX-DEPENDENT EFFECT OF EXERCISE ON BRAIN HEALTH IN OLDER ADULTS WITH VCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerobic training (AT) is a promising strategy for the promotion of brain health. However, a large amount of variation exists in its efficacy, and importantly, it is greatly underappreciated that biological sex may moderate the effect of aerobic training on cognition. Few studies have directly or comprehensively compared males and females to address the question of sex differences in the magnitude of AT efficacy. Therefore, we conducted a secondary analysis of data acquired from a 6-month single-blind randomized controlled trial of AT in older adults with mild subcortical vascular cognitive impairment (sVCI), a population at high risk of progression to dementia. Executive processes were measured at baseline and trial completion using: 1) Trail Making Test (TMT; set-shifting); 2) Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST; sustained attention); 3) Stroop-Color Word Test (selective attention & conflict resolution). Total WML load (mm3) was quantified using a semi-automated analysis pipeline at baseline and 6-months. We found that AT significantly enhanced TMT performance in females compared with controls. Notably, AT was ineffective in males. Groups did not differ in DSST or Stroop performance. Our results underscore the need for future studies to consider biological sex as a key moderator of the positive effect of exercise on brain health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".