Cardiorespiratory fitness and free-living physical activity are not associated with cognition in persons with progressive multiple sclerosis: Baseline analyses from the CogEx study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Aerobic exercise training (physical activity for improving cardiorespiratory fitness) represents a promising approach for managing cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, there is limited evidence that levels of physical activity and fitness are associated with cognition in progressive MS. Objective: We examined associations among cardiorespiratory fitness, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and cognitive performance in a large, international progressive MS sample. Methods: Two hundred forty European and North American persons with progressive MS underwent cardiorespiratory fitness measurement on a recumbent stepper, wore an ActiGraph GT3X + accelerometer for 7 days for measuring MVPA, and underwent the Brief International Cognitive Assessment in MS. Results: Cardiorespiratory fitness was not significantly correlated with Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT; r = −0.01; r = −0.04), California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II; r = 0.05; r = 0.05), or Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised (BVMT-R; r = −0.14; r = −0.14) z-scores controlling for age, sex, and education. MVPA and SDMT ( r = 0.05), CVLT-II ( r = −0.07), and BVMT-R ( r = 0.01) z-scores were not significantly correlated. Conclusion: Cardiorespiratory fitness and MVPA were not associated with cognition in this large progressive MS sample, yet these outcomes represent critical manipulation checks for documenting the success of the CogEx trial. This highlights the importance of examining other exercise-related mechanisms-of-action for improving cognition in progressive MS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".