Exercise and the Aging Brain: Considerations for Sex Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engaging in targeted exercise interventions is a promising, non-pharmacological strategy to mitigate the deleterious effects of aging and disease on brain health. However, despite its therapeutic potential, a large amount of variation exists in exercise efficacy in older adults aged 55 and older. In this review, we present the argument that biological sex may be an important moderator of the relationship between physical activity and cognition. Sex differences exist in dementia as well as in several associated risk factors, including genetics, cardiovascular factors, inflammation, hormones and social and psychological factors. Different exercise interventions, such as aerobic training and resistance training, influence cognition and brain health in older adults and these effects may be sex-dependent. The biological mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of exercise on the brain may be different in males and females. Specifically, we examine sex differences in neuroplasticity, neurotrophic factors and physiological effects of exercise to highlight the possible mediators of sex differences in exercise efficacy on cognition. Future studies should address the potential sex difference in exercise efficacy if we are to develop effective, evidence-based exercise interventions to promote healthy brain aging for all individuals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".