MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206225010 · doi:10.1002/alz.054095

Cardiovascular risk moderates aerobic exercise efficacy on executive function in subcortical ischemic vascular cognitive impairment

2021· article· en· W4206225010 on OpenAlexaffabout
Teresa Liu‐Ambrose, Cindy K. Barha, Elizabeth Dao, Ging‐Yuek Robin Hsiung, Lauren Marcotte, Roger Tam

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstitutePositive Living Society of British ColumbiaUniversity of British ColumbiaBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerobic exerciseStroop effectMemory spanFramingham Risk ScoreAnalysis of covarianceMedicinePhysical therapyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentTrail Making TestCognitionExecutive dysfunctionCardiovascular fitnessRandomized controlled trialPsychologyInternal medicinePhysical fitnessWorking memoryNeuropsychologyCognitive impairmentDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Aerobic exercise can promote cognitive function in adults with Subcortical Ischemic Vascular Cognitive Impairment (SIVCI) by modifying cardiovascular risk factors. However, one’s cardiovascular health may attenuate the benefits of aerobic exercise on cognitive outcomes in SIVCI. We examined whether baseline Framingham Cardiovascular Risk Profile Score (FCRP) moderates the effect of a 6‐month progressive aerobic exercise program on executive function in adults with SIVCI. Method A secondary analysis of a proof‐of‐concept randomized controlled trial in 71 adults, who were randomized to either: 1) 3x/week progressive aerobic exercise program (AT); or 2) education program (CON). Three executive processes were measured: 1) response inhibition by Stroop Colour Word Test; 2) working memory by digits backward test, and 3) set shifting by the Trail Making Test (B‐A). Baseline cardiovascular risk was calculated using the FCRP, and participants were classified as either low risk (<20% FCRP score; LCVR) or high risk (>20% FCRP score; HCVR). A complete case analysis (n=57) was conducted using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to evaluate between‐group differences in the three executive processes. Age, baseline Montreal Cognitive Assessment score, education, and baseline score for the outcome variable were entered as covariates in all models. Result A significant interaction was found between FCRP and group (AT or CON) for the digit span backward (F(1,49)=4.67, p=0.03) and the Trail Making Test (F(1,50)=4.09, p=0.04). On the digit span backward test, AT improved performance compared to CON (3.74±.33 vs. 2.75±.46) in those with LCVR, while in those with HCVR, AT did not improve performance compared to CON (2.97±.45 vs. 3.76±.41). Similarly, for the Trail Making Test (B‐A), AT improved performance compared to CON (52.66±13.27 vs. 80.12±17.82) in those with LCVR, while AT was not beneficial compared to CON in those with HCVR (98.80±18.06 vs. 59.92±17.09). Conclusion Baseline cardiovascular risk significantly moderates the efficacy of aerobic exercise on working memory and set shifting in adults with SIVCI. Our findings highlight the importance of intervening early in the disease course of SIVCI, when cardiovascular risk may be lower, to reap maximum benefits of aerobic exercise.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→