The Post Ischaemic Stroke Cardiovascular Exercise Study: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of fitness training for brain health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Compared to healthy individuals, stroke patients have five times the rate of dementia diagnosis within three years. Aerobic exercise may induce neuroprotective mechanisms that help to preserve, and even increase, brain volume and cognition. We seek to determine whether aerobic fitness training helps to protect brain volume and cognitive function after stroke compared to an active, non-aerobic control. Methods In this Phase IIb, single blind, randomised controlled trial, 100 ischaemic stroke participants, recruited at two months post-stroke, will be randomly allocated to either the intervention (aerobic and strength exercise) or active control (stretching and balance training). Participants will attend one-hour, individualised exercise sessions, three days-per-week for eight weeks. Assessments at two months (baseline), four months (post-intervention), and one year (follow-up) post-stroke will measure brain volume, cognition, mood, cardiorespiratory fitness, physical activity, blood pressure and blood biomarkers. Study outcome: Our primary outcome measure is hippocampal volume at four months after stroke. We hypothesise that participants who undertake the prescribed intervention will have preserved hippocampal volume at four months compared to the control group. We also hypothesise that this group will have preserved total brain volume and cognition, better mood, fitness, and higher levels of physical activity, than those receiving stretching and balance training. Discussion The promise of exercise training to prevent, or slow, the accelerated rates of brain atrophy and cognitive decline experienced by stroke survivors needs to be tested. Post Ischaemic Stroke Cardiovascular Exercise Study has the potential, if proven efficacious, to identify a new treatment that could be readily translated to the clinic.
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 | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.015 |
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".