MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205905301 · doi:10.1002/alz.056506

The effects of exercise on blood pressure and cognitive function in older adults with hypertension and subjective cognitive decline

2021· article· en· W4205905301 on OpenAlexaff
Nárlon Cássio Boa Sorte Silva, A Petrella, Dawn P. Gill, Adrian M. Owen, Robert J. Petrella

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal HealthWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineBlood pressureCognitionCognitive declineHigh-intensity interval trainingInternal medicineDiastolePhysical therapyPhysical fitnessCardiologyHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The impact of exercise on cognition in older adults with hypertension and subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is unclear. In this study, we examined the influence of high‐intensity interval training (HIIT) combined with mind‐motor training on cognition and systolic blood pressure (BP) in older adults with hypertension and SCD. Method We randomized 128 community‐dwelling older adults (age mean [SD]: 71.1 [6.7], 47.7% females) with history of hypertension and SCD to either HIIT or a moderate‐intensity continuous training (MCT) group. Both groups received 15 minutes of mind‐motor training followed by 45 minutes of either HIIT or MCT. Participants exercised in total 60 minutes/day, 3 days/week for 6 months. We assessed changes in global cognitive functioning (GCF), Trail‐Making Test (TMT), systolic and diastolic BP, and cardiorespiratory fitness, using linear mixed regression models for repeated measurements. We also determined whether changes in cardiorespiratory fitness would be associated with changes in cognition and BP using hierarchical regression models adjusting for age and years of education. Result After 6 months, participants in both groups had improved cardiorespiratory fitness (F[1, 69]= 34.795, p < 0.001), TMT A (F[1, 81.51]= 26.871, p < 0.001) and B (F[1, 79.49]= 23.107, p < 0.001). Both groups also had improved diastolic BP (F[1, 87.32] = 4.392, p = 0.039), with greatest effect within the HIIT group (estimated mean change [95% CI]: ‐2.64 mmHg, [‐4.79 to ‐0.48], p = 0.017),but no between‐group differences were noted. Improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness across groups was associated with improved TMT A (unstandardized B = 0.21, p = 0.044), but not TMT B (unstandardized B = 0.002, p = 0.84) or diastolic BP (unstandardized B = ‐0.070, p = 0.58). There were no within‐ or between‐group differences in GCF or systolic BP. Conclusion Exercise of high‐ or moderate‐intensity seems to impart modest but positive effects on vascular health and lower‐level cognitive processing. The association between improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness and lower‐level cognition suggest a mechanistic effect. Future research in older adults with hypertension should consider modulating other aspects of exercise training or employ other exercise modalities to benefit cognition.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→