Effects of Resistance Exercise with Instability on Cognitive Function (REI Study): A Proof-Of-Concept Randomized Controlled Trial in Older Adults with Cognitive Complaints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Activities which simultaneously challenge both physical and cognitive function are promising strategies for promoting cognitive function. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of resistance exercise with instability and traditional resistance exercise compared with a health education control on cognitive function in older adults with cognitive complaints. METHODS: Sixty-seven participants were randomized to either 12 weeks of thrice-weekly resistance exercise (RE = 23), RE with instability (REI = 22), or a weekly health education control (CON = 22). At each training session, RE and REI participants performed seven exercises for three sets and 10-15 repetitions. REI participants performed each exercise using instability devices. The primary outcome was a composite score of global cognitive function. Secondary outcomes included composite scores for cognitive sub-domains and physical function. RESULTS: Most participants were women (REI: 77%; RE = 78%; CON = 77%; mean age of 71 years), and did not need transport to the intervention site. At completion, compared with CON, REI and RE did not significantly improve on global cognition or each cognitive sub-domain. Both exercise groups improved on the timed up and go (REI - CON: -1.6 s, 95% CI: [-2.6, -0.5]; RE - CON: -1.4 s, 95% CI: [-2.4, -0.5) and 1-RM (REI - CON: 24 kg, 95% CI: [11, 36]; RE - CON: 25 kg, 95% CI: [12, 37]). An exploratory contrast showed that compared with RE, REI promote greater gains on global cognition (2.20, 95% CI: [0.10, 4.31]) and memory (1.34; 95% CI: [0.15, 2.54]). CONCLUSION: REI did not substantially improve cognitive function but did promote physical function among older adults with cognitive complaints. However, compared with RE, REI improved global cognition and memory.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".