Physical Activity and Mobility Differentially Predict Nondemented Executive Function Trajectories: Do Sex and <b><i>APOE</i></b> Moderate These Associations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In nondemented aging, higher levels of everyday physical activity (EPA) and mobility performance are associated with better executive function (EF) trajectories. However, these associations may be moderated by both sex and Alzheimer's disease (AD) genetic risk. OBJECTIVES: In a longitudinal study, we investigate sex differences in (a) EPA and mobility effects on EF performance (level) and change (slope) and (b) AD genetic risk moderation of these associations. METHODS: The longitudinal design included nondemented adults (n = 532, mean age = 70.4 years, range 53-95) from the Victoria Longitudinal Study. Using structural equation analyses on an EF latent variable, we tested (a) sex moderation and (b) interactive effects of sex and APOE on observed EPA-EF and mobility-EF performance and change relationships. RESULTS: First, we observed independent sex effects for the EPA-EF and mobility-EF predictions. Whereas EPA had a significant effect on EF performance and change only for females, mobility had a significant effect for both sexes. Notably, males with lower mobility levels experienced steeper EF decline than females with lower mobility levels. Second, we observed significant sex × APOE interaction effects. The combination of lower genetic risk and higher EPA benefitted females but not males. In contrast, lower genetic risk and higher mobility benefited both sexes, although male APOE no-risk carriers with lower mobility levels had EF decline patterns that were similar to APOE risk carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal analyses across a broad band of aging show that sex moderates the effects of both EPA and mobility on EF performance and change. Notably, this moderation occurs differentially across the AD genetic risk status. These results point to a precision health approach to observational and interventional research in which effects of physical activity and mobility on EF trajectories and dementia are examined in the personalized and interactive context of sex and AD risk.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".