MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801432217 · doi:10.7717/peerj.4675

You can’t fix what isn’t broken: eight weeks of exercise do not substantially change cognitive function and biochemical markers in young and healthy adults

2018· article· en· W2801432217 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne Gourgouvelis, Paul Yielder, Sandra T. Clarke, Hushyar Behbahani, Bernadette Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessCognitionYoung adultMedicineExercise prescriptionCognitive declineBrain-derived neurotrophic factorPhysical fitnessEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performancePhysical therapyPsychologyInternal medicineGerontologyNeurotrophic factorsPsychiatryDiseaseDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The benefits of exercise on brain health is well known in aging and psychiatric populations. However, the relationship between habitual exercise in young and healthy adults remains unclear. This study explored the effects an eight-week exercise prescription on cognitive function, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and cathepsin B (CTHB) in young and healthy adults. METHODS: A total of 22 low-active, young and healthy adults were recruited from a local university. A total of 12 participants performed an eight-week exercise prescription and 12 participants served as controls. Cognitive assessments, cardiorespiratory fitness and plasma BDNF and CTHB concentrations were measured at baseline and eight weeks. RESULTS: = 1.48) with no improvements in cognitive function or no changes in plasma BDNF and CTHB concentrations. CONCLUSION: We provide evidence that a short-term course of moderate exercise does not improve cognitive function or change plasma biochemical markers concentrations in young and healthy adults, despite mild improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness. These results suggest that cognitive health may peak during early adulthood leaving little room for improvement throughout this period of the lifespan.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designRandomized trial · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207