Changes in the Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor Are Associated with Improvements in Diabetes Risk Factors after Exercise Training in Adolescents with Obesity: The HEARTY Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity in youth increases the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), and both are risk factors for neurocognitive deficits. Exercise attenuates the risk of obesity and T2D while improving cognitive function. In adults, these benefits are associated with the actions of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein critical in modulating neuroplasticity, glucose regulation, fat oxidation, and appetite regulation in adults. However, little research exists in youth. This study examined the associations between changes in diabetes risk factors and changes in BDNF levels after 6 months of exercise training in adolescents with obesity. The sample consisted of 202 postpubertal adolescents with obesity (70% females) aged 14–18 years who were randomized to 6 months of aerobic and/or resistance training or nonexercise control. All participants received a healthy eating plan designed to induce a 250/kcal deficit per day. Resting serum BDNF levels and diabetes risk factors, such as fasting glucose, insulin, homeostasis model assessment (HOMA-B—beta cell insulin secretory capacity) and (HOMA-IS—insulin sensitivity), and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), were measured after an overnight fast at baseline and 6 months. There were no significant intergroup differences on changes in BDNF or diabetes risk factors. In the exercise group, increases in BDNF were associated with reductions in fasting glucose ( β = −6.57, S E = 3.37, p = 0.05 ) and increases in HOMA-B ( β = 0.093, S E = 0.03, p = 0.004 ) after controlling for confounders. No associations were found between changes in diabetes risk factors and BDNF in controls. In conclusion, exercise-induced reductions in some diabetes risk factors were associated with increases in BDNF in adolescents with obesity, suggesting that exercise training may be an effective strategy to promote metabolic health and increases in BDNF, a protein favoring neuroplasticity. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00195858 , September 12, 2005 (funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".