A six-month exercise program improves executive control in persons in the prodromal stages of Alzheimer's disease: Short- and long-term benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults with memory complaints and/or objective cognitive deficits exhibit milestones for progression to dementia – a finding drawing attention to the need to develop intervention strategies that ameliorate further cognitive decline. The present work involved a large sample of individuals meeting the definition of a subjective cognitive complaint (Scc) who participated in a 24-week aerobic/resistance training (multi-modality group: M2) and aerobic/resistance with cognitive training (multi-modality, mind-motor group: M4) program. Each group completed three one-hour exercise sessions per week over the course of the training program and it is notable that the mind-motor group's training included a cognitively challenging task (i.e., square-stepping program) – a manipulation used to determine whether exercise in addition to cognitive training imparts an enhanced benefit to brain health than aerobic/resistance training alone. To determine whether the aforementioned programs improved executive control we contrasted pre-exercise antisaccade performance (i.e., saccade mirror-symmetrical to a target) with an immediate post-exercise time point, and again at a 28-week washout evaluation (i.e., without study-based intervention). Results showed that immediate and six-month post-exercise antisaccade reaction times for M2 and M4 groups were shorter than their respective pre-exercise performance, and that the magnitude of the executive benefit did not vary across groups. Thus, multi-modality exercise training improved executive control in persons with Scc regardless of the inclusion of cognitive training and this benefit persisted up to 28-weeks post-exercise. The washout results may reflect carryover benefits of the training program or an unanticipated increase in leisure time recreation activities.Acknowledgments: Supported by NSERC and CIHR.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".