Effect of combined bifidobacteria supplementation and resistance training on cognitive function, body composition and bowel habits of healthy elderly subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical exercise exerts favourable effects on brain health and quality of life of the elderly; some of these positive health effects are induced by the modulation of microbiota composition. We therefore conducted a randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial that assessed whether a combination of Bifidobacterium spp. supplementation and moderate resistance training improved the cognitive function and other health-related parameters in healthy elderly subjects. Over a 12-week period, 38 participants (66-78 years) underwent resistance training and were assigned to the probiotic Bifidobacterium supplementation (n=20; 1.25×1010 cfu each of Bifidobacterium longum subsp. longum BB536, B. longum subsp. infantis M-63, Bifidobacterium breve M-16V and B. breve B-3) or the placebo (n=18) group. At baseline and at 12 weeks, we assessed the cognitive function, using the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment instrument (MoCA-J); modified flanker task scores; depression-anxiety scores; body composition; and bowel habits. At 12 weeks, the MoCA-J scores showed a significant increase in both the groups, while the flanker task scores of the probiotic group increased more significantly than those of the placebo group (0.35±0.9 vs -0.29±1.1, P=0.056). Only the probiotic group showed a significant decrease in the depression-anxiety scores (5.2±6.3 to 3.4±5.5, P=0.012) and body mass index (24.0±2.8 to 23.5±2.8 kg/m2, P<0.001), with a significant increase in the defecation frequency (5.3±2.3 to 6.4±2.3 times/5 days, P=0.023) at 12 weeks. Thus, in healthy elderly subjects, combined probiotic bifidobacteria supplementation and moderate resistance training may improve the mental condition, body weight and bowel movement frequency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".