Sex differences in exercise efficacy: Is midlife a critical window for promoting healthy cognitive aging?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia is one of the most pressing health care issues of this century. As no curative treatment for dementia exists, research efforts are growing to identify effective lifestyle interventions to prevent or delay onset. One such promising strategy that promotes cognitive and brain health is engaging in physical exercise. However, current exercise recommendations are imprecise. To advance the potential of exercise as a preventative and treatment strategy, important questions regarding moderators (ie, biological sex and age) are being addressed in the literature. Biological sex is recognized as an important variable to consider in exercise efficacy on brain health, with females showing greater cognitive gains. This may be related to sex differences in underlying mechanisms. Here, we argue to better understand the sex differences in exercise efficacy, the timing of exercise intervention should also be considered. Specifically, we present the hypothesis that midlife in females is a critical window for the implementation of exercise as an early intervention to promote brain health and prevent dementia. Further, we speculate that exercise interventions targeting midlife will be of critical importance for the female brain, as females exit this period of the lifespan at greater risk for cognitive impairment. Given the potential sex differences in dementia risk and prevalence, it is imperative to assess potential sex differences in exercise efficacy as an early intervention during midlife.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".