Late‐life physical activity relates to brain tissue synaptic integrity markers in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical activity (PA) is widely recommended for age-related brain health, yet its neurobiology is not well understood. Animal models indicate PA is synaptogenic. We examined the relationship between PA and synaptic integrity markers in older adults. METHODS: Four hundred four decedents from the Rush Memory and Aging Project completed annual actigraphy monitoring (Mean visits = 3.5±2.4) and post mortem evaluation. Brain tissue was analyzed for presynaptic proteins (synaptophysin, synaptotagmin-1, vesicle-associated membrane proteins, syntaxin, complexin-I, and complexin-II), and neuropathology. Models examined relationships between late-life PA (averaged across visits), and timing-specific PA (time to autopsy) with synaptic proteins. RESULTS: Greater late-life PA associated with higher presynaptic protein levels (0.14 < β < 0.20), except complexin-II (β = 0.08). Relationships were independent of pathology but timing specific; participants who completed actigraphy within 2 years of brain tissue measurements showed largest PA-to-synaptic protein associations (0.32 < β < 0.38). Relationships between PA and presynaptic proteins were comparable across brain regions sampled. DISCUSSION: PA associates with synaptic integrity in a regionally global, but time-linked nature in older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".