Effects of 5 Years Aerobic Exercise on Cognition in Older Adults: The Generation 100 Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate whether a 5-year exercise intervention and change in peak oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]) is associated with cognitive function in older adults. METHODS: Nine hundred and forty-five participants (48% women, mean age at study end 78.2 ± 2.02 years) from the Generation 100 Study were randomized 2:1:1 to a control group, moderate-intensity continuous training or high-intensity interval training twice weekly for 5 years. Peak oxygen uptake was measured using ergospirometry at baseline and after 5 years. Global cognition and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (MoCA) after 5 years. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, the combined moderate-intensity continuous training plus high-intensity interval training (ExComb) group did not have significantly different cognitive scores (beta value 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.17, 0.69) or odds of MCI (odds ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.66, 1.13). Men in the ExComb group had 0.80 points higher MoCA (95% CI 0.21, 1.40) and 32% lower odds of MCI compared with male controls (95% CI 0.47, 0.99), with no such findings in women. In the total sample, each 1 metabolic equivalent of task increase in [Formula: see text] corresponded to 0.46 points higher MoCA (95% CI 0.25, 0.67) and 27% lower odds of MCI (95% CI 0.63, 0.85). Compared to [Formula: see text] stable, participants whose [Formula: see text] increased did not have significantly different cognitive scores (beta value 0.24, CI - 0.68, 1.15) or odds of MCI (odds ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.36, 1.34), whereas participants whose [Formula: see text] decreased had 0.64 points lower MoCA (95% CI - 1.15, - 0.14) and 35% higher odds of MCI (95% CI 0.98, 1.87). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, exercise was not significantly associated with cognition among older adults. However, maintaining or increasing [Formula: see text] appeared to benefit cognition. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01666340.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".