Aerobic exercise improves cognition and cerebrovascular regulation in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To test the hypothesis that aerobic exercise is associated with improvements in cognition and cerebrovascular regulation, we enrolled 206 healthy low-active middle-aged and older adults (mean ± SD age 65.9 ± 6.4 years) in a supervised 6-month aerobic exercise intervention and assessed them before and after the intervention. Methods The study is a quasi-experimental single group pre/postintervention study. Neuropsychological tests were used to assess cognition before and after the intervention. Transcranial Doppler ultrasound was used to measure cerebral blood flow velocity. Cerebrovascular regulation was assessed at rest, during euoxic hypercapnia, and in response to submaximal exercise. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the association between changes in cognition and changes in cerebrovascular function. Results The intervention was associated with improvements in some cognitive domains, cardiorespiratory fitness, and cerebrovascular regulation. Changes in executive functions were negatively associated with changes in cerebrovascular resistance index (CVRi) during submaximal exercise (β = −0.205, p = 0.013), while fluency improvements were positively associated with changes in CVRi during hypercapnia (β = 0.106, p = 0.03). Conclusion The 6-month aerobic exercise intervention was associated with improvements in some cognitive domains and cerebrovascular regulation. Secondary analyses showed a novel association between changes in cognition and changes in cerebrovascular regulation during euoxic hypercapnia and in response to submaximal exercise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".