MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996175748 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56251-y

Effects of Caffeine and Acute Aerobic Exercise on Working Memory and Caffeine Withdrawal

2019· article· en· W2996175748 on OpenAlexaff
Anisa Morava, Matthew Fagan, Harry Prapavessis

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaffeineAerobic exerciseEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceMedicineWorking memoryCognitionPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies show that a single bout of exercise confers cognitive benefits. However, many individuals use psychoactive substances such as caffeine to enhance cognitive performance. The effects of acute exercise in comparison to caffeine on cognition remain unknown. Furthermore, caffeine use is associated with withdrawal symptoms upon cessation. Whether acute exercise can reduce withdrawal symptoms also remains unknown. The objectives of this study were to compare the effects of acute moderate intensity aerobic exercise to caffeine on working memory (WM) and caffeine withdrawal symptoms (CWS). In Phase I, non-caffeine (n = 29) and caffeine consumers (n = 30) completed a WM assessment, followed by acute exercise and caffeine. In Phase II, caffeine consumers (n = 25) from Phase I underwent the WM assessment and reported CWS following a 12-hour deprivation period. Acute moderate intensity aerobic exercise and caffeine (1.2 mg/kg) significantly improved WM accuracy and reduced CWS comparably. WM performance was not reduced following caffeine deprivation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207