Synergistic effects of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and exercise intensity on memory in the adolescent brain: a commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary highlights the recently published study by Jeon and Ha (Environ Health Prev Med 22:27, 2017) examining the effects of exercise intensity and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) on memory in adolescents. This 12-week training study elicited increases in BDNF and improvements in working memory during moderate- and high-intensity exercise, which may have been achieved through improved brain tissue oxygenation, nutrient delivery, and BDNF mRNA expression. These improvements highlight the positive neuroendocrinological effects of BDNF and its role as a potential candidate molecule, as a mediator of synaptic plasticity. In this commentary, we aim to highlight the strengths and potential areas of consideration of Jeon and Ha (Environ Health Prev Med 22:27, 2017). We also offer insight into the clinical implications of this study, such as advocating for exercise in healthy children and as adjunctive therapy in pathological states. This study is promising and further highlights the importance of cardiorespiratory exercise in improving physiological health and cognitive functioning in youth through the phenomenon of neuroplasticity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".