Dose-Response Effects of Acute Aerobic Exercise Duration on Cognitive Function in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Crossover Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the differential effects of acute exercise duration on domains of executive function and processing speed in patients with breast cancer. Methods: Participants (N=48, Mage=56.02±10.99) completed two sessions in counterbalanced order: moderate-intensity treadmill walking and sitting. Participants were also randomized to one of three duration conditions: 10 (n=15), 20 (n=16), or 30 (n=17) minutes, reflecting the length of time spent walking and sitting. Immediately before and after each session, women completed a battery of cognitive tasks (e.g., inhibition, cognitive flexibility, spatial working memory, processing speed). Results: Within- and between-subjects repeated measures analyses of variance revealed time by condition interactions on both processing speed (p=.02) and spatial working memory (ps<.07), such that women demonstrated improved cognitive functioning regardless of the time spent walking. There were also several moderately-sized three-way (e.g., time by condition by duration) interactions, driven by declines in cognitive functioning after sitting on cognitive flexibility in the 10- (d = -.96) and 30-minute (d = -.52) groups and inhibition in the 20-minute group (d = .75). On the processing speed task, women performed significantly faster after walking compared with after sitting in the 20-minute group (d = -.24). Conclusions: For select cognitive domains, walking anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes is associated with significant benefits. Our findings suggest the need for further research into the mechanisms and dose-response relationships between acute exercise and cognition, as well as how such acute bouts may be accumulated for larger, lasting cognitive benefits after breast cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".