IMPACT OF STATINS ON THE COGNITIVE BENEFITS OF AEROBIC TRAINING IN OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies suggest that aerobic training (AER) could have benefits on cognition in older adult. Others underline that statins, North America most prescribed drug class, could limits physical benefits of aerobic training. The effects of statins on cognitive benefits of aerobic training have never been evaluated. To determine if the cognitive benefits of AER are moderated by statins intake. 136 participants (>60 y.o.) were either part of an AER or a control group (CON) for three months. Cognition was assessed using the modified version of the Stroop color task that involves inhibition and switching conditions. Analysis were performed on reaction time z-score change from pre to post intervention. Age, education, BMI, number of comorbidities, sex, protocol and handgrip strength were used as covariables. Two-factor ANCOVA (Statins/Non-Statins * AER/CON) as been applied on dependant variables. A moderator test was done whenever there was a significative interaction to explore the specific effects of statins on AER. ANCOVA shows an interaction between the group (AER/CON) and statins in the Stroop switching condition (F=7.24, p<.01). The interaction between AER and the switching condition was entirely moderated by statins (F=7.91, p<.01): improvement in AER compared to CON was significant only in non-statin takers (Effect = 0.185; p<.001). No significative effect was found the other Stroop conditions. Results suggest that statins could limit cognitive benefits of AER. These are innovative results that should be consider in cardiovascular disease primary prevention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".