MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2896736357 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.2796

O3‐05‐03: GAINS FOR BRAINS: EVIDENCE FOR SEX‐DEPENDENT EFFECTS OF EXERCISE

2018· article· en· W2896736357 on OpenAlexaff
Cindy K. Barha, John R. Best, Caterina Rosano, Anne B. Newman, Hilsa N. Ayonayon, Susan Rubin, Janet M. Catov, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialAerobic exerciseBody mass indexDiseaseCohortCognitionAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeCognitive reserveInternal medicinePhysical therapyDementiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical activity (PA) is a promising strategy to mitigate the deleterious effects of aging and disease on brain health. However, a large amount of variation exists in its efficacy. Given the greater prevalence and faster progression of Alzheimer's disease in women compared to men, and known sex differences in brain architecture, analysis of sex differences in the relationship between PA and cognition, including underlying mechanisms, is warranted. To address this, we conducted secondary analyses of data from two studies: 1) PROMoTE – a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 6-month, thrice-weekly aerobic training (AT) in older adults with mild vascular cognitive impairment, and 2) Health ABC – a 10-year, longitudinal, epidemiological cohort study of 2873 older white and black adults with retrospective PA measured through self-reported walking behaviour. A subset of 313 Health ABC participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging at year 10. Analysis of covariance and latent growth curve modeling were utilized to examine the interaction between sex and AT or PA, controlling for age, study site, education, body mass index, diabetes, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, brain atrophy, and total gray matter where appropriate. We focused on executive functions as meta-analyses suggest that aerobic exercise has larger benefits for this cognitive domain. In the PROMoTE RCT, we found that compared to usual care control, AT significantly improved executive functioning in females, but not males, an effect that was still evident 6 months later (p's<0.05). Further, AT increased levels of brain derived neurotrophic factor in females compared to males (p<0.01). In the Health ABC data, higher initial PA and increased PA over time were associated with less decline in executive functioning over time in females (p's<0.05), but not males (see Figure 1). Interestingly, maintenance of PA over time was related to larger left dorsal lateral prefrontal cortical volume in females only (p<0.05). Standardized results of latent growth curve model assessing longitudinal relationships among physical activity (walking) and executive functioning (DSST). To reduce model complexity, covariates (age, study site, education, body mass index, diabetes, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease) are not shown. Unstandardized estimates, except for path C, are shown for females in red and males in blue. Values must be less than 0.05 in both unadjusted and adjusted models to be significant. DSST = Digit Symbol Substitution Test. *p < 0.05; **p<0.01. Together, these findings provide evidence that sex differences exist in the effect of PA on cognition as well as in the underlying neurobiological mechanisms. This new knowledge can foster development of efficacious and sex-specific exercise recommendations to promote brain health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→