Does exercise have a protective effect on cognitive function under hypoxia? A systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine (1) the independent effects of hypoxia on cognitive function and (2) the effects of exercise on cognition while under hypoxia. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsychInfo, and SPORTDiscus were searched. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled studies that investigated the effects of chronic or acute exercise on cognition under hypoxia were considered (Aim 2), as were studies investigating the effects of hypoxia on cognition (Aim 1). In total, 18 studies met our inclusionary criteria for the systematic review, and 12 studies were meta-analyzed. Exposure to hypoxia impaired attentional ability (standardized mean difference (SMD) = –0.4), executive function (SMD = –0.18), and memory function (SMD = –0.26), but not information processing (SMD = 0.27). Aggregated results indicated that performing exercise under a hypoxia setting had a significant effect on cognitive improvement (SMD = 0.3, 95% confidence interval: 0.14 – 0.45, I2 = 54%, p < 0.001). Various characteristics (e.g., age, cognitive task type, exercise type, exercise intensity, training type, and hypoxia level) moderated the effects of hypoxia and exercise on cognitive function. Exercise during exposure to hypoxia improves cognitive function. This association appears to be moderated by individual and exercise/hypoxia-related characteristics.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".