MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P317: Cognitive Impairment in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: Do Exercise Tolerance and Cerebral Oxygenation During Exercise Matter?

2012· article· en· W37487866 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Grémeaux, Joffrey Drigny, Mathieu Gayda, Martin Juneau, Louis Bherer, Anil Nigam

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineStroop effectCardiac outputCoronary artery diseaseVO2 maxEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceTrail Making TestMemory spanHemodynamicsCognitionHeart rateCognitive impairmentDiseaseBlood pressureWorking memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Cardiovascular diseases have been associated with impaired cognitive performances, especially in functions. In contrast, it is clearly established that regular physical activity maintained throughout life protects against age-related cognitive decline. Purpose: to assess maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), cardiac output, and cerebral hemodynamic changes, assessed by Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS), during a graded maximal exercise tests, and cognitive performance at rest in patients with stable coronary heart disease (CHD) and healthy matched adults. Methods: Ten stable CHD patients (67.1±10.5 years) and 9 age-matched controls (62.2± 11.4 years) were included in this pilot study. Measurements included: body composition (bioelectrical impedance), complete blood analysis in a fasting state, cognitive performance using validated neuropsychological tests, graded maximal exercise testing on ergocycle with gas exchange analysis, non-invasive cardiac output measurement (cardiac bioimpedance) and NIRS signals measurement at the left prefrontal brain level (oxyhaemoglobin: O2Hb, deoxyhaemoglobin: HHb ; total haemoglobin: THb, and differential haemoglogin: Hbdiff). Results: Several cognitive performance items were lower in the CHD group, especially regarding executive functions (Backward digit span score, p<0.05; trail making test B, p=0.05; Stroop test (inhibition/flexibility), p<0.05). There was no difference between CHD and controls in VO2 max (29.7±8.5 Vs 32±6.3 ml/kg/min) and maximal cardiac output (15.5±3.9 Vs 17±2.6 l/min), whereas cardiac output and cardiac index at the ventilatory threshold were lower in CHD (5.75±1 Vs 7.06±0.6 l/min/m2, p<0.05, and 11.2±2.2 Vs 14.1±2.8 l/min, p<0.01, respectively). There was a significant difference in the kinetics of NIRS signal with higher amplitude for CHD patients vs. controls for O2Hb (p<0.01); THb (p<0.05) and Hbdiff (p<0.05). Significant higher amplitude were also found for O2Hb, THb, Hbdiff (p<0.0001) in younger (62 years) participants. HHb (p<0.0001) and Hbdiff (p<0.01) amplitude was higher for fit (≥120% theoretical VO2max) vs. less fit (<120%) participants. Discussion: Compared to age-matched controls, our sample of stable fit CHD patients had a comparable maximal exercise tolerance and cardiac output, with higher NIRS cerebral signals amplitude for O2Hb, THb and Hbdiff. This latter parameter thus does not seem to influence cognitive performance at rest, that was lower in CHD patients, especially in executive functions. However, an important inter-individual variability of cerebral NIRS signal amplitude was observed, with age and fitness appearing as major contributors. We plan to recruit a larger sample of subjects to assess more clearly relationships between exercise, tolerance hemodynamic parameters and cognitive performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors→French-language works237,207→