Sex differences in the effects of exercise on cognition post-stroke: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences in exercise-associated changes in cognitive func-tion between males and females living with stroke. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a prospective assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty participants (50-80 years, > 1 year post-stroke, able to walk ≥ 5 m). METHODS: Participants were allocated into a 6-month aerobic exercise programme (14 males, 11 females) or balance and flexibility programme (15 males, 10 females). Working memory (Verbal Digit Span Backwards Test), selective attention and conflict resolution (Stroop Colour-Word Test), and set shifting/cognitive flexibility (Trail-Making Test B) were assessed before and after the programmes. RESULTS: There was a group × time interaction in females (effect size 0.28, p = 0.03), which was not observed in males (effect size 0.01, p = 0.62). Females demonstrated a Stroop Colour-Word Interference test change of -2.3 s, whereas males demonstrated a change of +5.5 s following aerobic exercise. There were no differences between exercise groups in either sex for any of the other outcomes (working memory and set-shifting/cognitive flexibility). CONCLUSION: Females living with stroke may demonstrate a greater response to exercise on selective attention and conflict resolution compared with males with stroke. These findings suggest that there may be sex-specific effects of exercise on cognitive func-tion in individuals with stroke.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".