The effects of short-term low energy availability, achieved through diet or exercise, on cognitive function in oral contraceptive users and eumenorrheic women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, no research has explored the effects of low energy availability on cognitive performance using dietary and exercise regimens relevant to athletes. Twenty female participants (10 eumenorrheic, 10 oral contraceptive [OC] users) completed three 3-day conditions: 1) controlled-balanced energy availability without exercise (BAL; 45 kcal·kg lean body mass [LBM]−1·day−1); 2) diet-induced low energy availability without exercise (DIET; 15 kcal·kg LBM−1·day−1); and 3) exercise-induced low energy availability (EX; 15 kcal·kg LBM−1·day−1, including 30 kcal·kg LBM−1·day−1 treadmill running at 70% maximal oxygen uptake). A cognitive test battery was completed before and after each 3-day condition. Mental rotation test accuracy improved in the BAL condition, but there was a decline in accuracy in the EX condition (BAL, +2.5%; EX, −1.4%; P = 0.042, d = 0.85). DIET (+1.3%) was not different to BAL or EX (P > 0.05). All other measures of cognitive performance were not affected by condition (P > 0.05) and OC use did not affect cognitive responses (P > 0.05). Accuracy in the mental rotation test was impaired when low energy availability was induced through increased exercise energy expenditure. All other aspects of cognition were unaffected by 3 days of low energy availability through diet or exercise. OC use did not mediate the effect of low energy availability on cognition. Novelty: Cognitive function was not affected by 3 days of diet-induced low energy availability. Only spatial awareness was impaired during 3 days of exercise-induced low energy availability. Reproductive hormones affected spatial awareness independent of energy availability.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".