Effects of Exercise on Cognitive Performance in Older Adults: A Narrative Review of the Evidence, Possible Biological Mechanisms, and Recommendations for Exercise Prescription
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity and exercise have emerged as potential methods to improve brain health among older adults. However, there are currently no physical activity guidelines aimed at improving cognitive function, and the mechanisms underlying these cognitive benefits are poorly understood. The purpose of this narrative review is to present the current evidence regarding the effects of physical activity and exercise on cognition in older adults without cognitive impairment, identify potential mechanisms underlying these effects, and make recommendations for exercise prescription to enhance cognitive performance. The review begins with a summary of evidence of the effect of chronic physical activity and exercise on cognition. Attention then turns to four main biological mechanisms that appear to underlie exercise-induced cognitive improvement, including the upregulation of growth factors and neuroplasticity, inhibition of inflammatory biomarker production, improved vascular function, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis regulation. The last section provides an overview of exercise parameters known to optimize cognition in older adults, such as exercise type, frequency, intensity, session duration, and exercise program duration.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".