Assessment of the Relationship Between Executive Function and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Healthy Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Associations between cardiorespiratory fitness and brain health in healthy older adults have been reported using a variety of cardiorespiratory fitness estimates (CRFe). Using commonly used methods to determine CRF, we assessed the relationship between CRFe and executive function performance. Healthy older adults ( n = 60, mean age 68 years, 77% women), underwent three CRF tests: a Maximal Graded Exercise Test performed on a cycle ergometer, the Rockport Fitness Walking Test, and a Non-Exercise Prediction Equation. Executive function was assessed by a computerized cognitive assessment using an N-Back task (updating cost) and a Stroop task (interference cost, global and local switch cost). Multiple hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between different CRFe and executive function performance. Regardless of age and education, cardiorespiratory fitness estimated from the Maximal Graded Exercise Test and the Rockport Fitness Walking Test was significantly associated with the global switch cost. All CRFe were associated with the interference cost. No association was observed between CRFe and local switching costs or the updating costs. In the present study, not all subcomponents of executive function were related to CRFe. Interestingly, the executive functions that were associated with CRFe are those that are known to be the most affected by aging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".