The effects of aerobic exercise on cognition and gait in Parkinson's disease: Does baseline cognitive status matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerobic exercise has been shown to improve both cognition and gait in Parkinson's disease (PD). However, it remains unknown whether exercise selectively influences cognition and gait in cognitively intact and cognitively impaired individuals with PD. This study aimed to investigate whether cognitive status influences the potential benefits of aerobic exercise on cognition and gait in PD. Thirty-nine individuals with PD were randomly allocated into an aerobic exercise or a control group. Participants were classified at baseline as cognitively intact or impaired. The aerobic group attended 60-minute sessions, 3x/week, for 12 weeks, while the control group carried on with their typical daily activities. Assessments included ten neuropsychological tests, in addition to single and dual-task gait. An interaction between time and group found for processing speed (p=0.02) showed that the aerobic group was faster after intervention (p=0.046). A time by group by cognitive status interaction for processing speed (p=0.034) revealed that cognitively impaired control participants worsened after 12 weeks. Another time by group by cognitive status interaction was found for inhibitory control (p=0.048), showing that both cognitively intact (p=0.039) and impaired (p=0.030) participants improved inhibition after aerobic exercise, while only cognitively impaired control participants (p=0.006) were better at post-test. In relation to gait, a time by task by group interaction was found for step width (p=0.029), demonstrating that at post-test the aerobic group had wider steps (p=0.005) while the control group had narrower steps (0.024) during dual-task walking. Results suggest that both cognitively intact and cognitively impaired individuals with PD may benefit from aerobic exercise.Acknowledgments: Canada Foundation for Innovation, Sun Life Financial, and CNPq
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".