Cardiorespiratory Fitness May Protect Memory for Poorer Sleepers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Physical activity has been shown to protect executive functions against the deleterious effects of poorer sleep among older adults (OA); however, it is unknown whether memory is protected too, and if this relationship differs by age. The present study investigated the relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness, sleep, and memory in both older and young adults (YA). METHODS: This observational study recruited 26 OA (70.7 ± 2.8 years) and 35 YA (21.0 ± 3.1 years). Participants completed the Rockport 1-mile walk test to evaluate cardiorespiratory fitness. Participants wore an actigraph for 1 week to measure habitual sleep and returned for a second visit to perform the memory tests. The interaction between cardiorespiratory fitness and sleep to predict memory was assessed separately in OA and YA. RESULTS: In OA, cardiorespiratory fitness significantly moderated the relationship between memory and sleep quality, specifically number of nighttime awakenings, sleep efficiency, and wake after sleep onset. Further analyses reveal that a high number of nighttime awakenings and low sleep efficiency significantly predicted worse memory performance in the low fit OA, but high fit OA. Notably, every nighttime awakening was associated with a nearly 4% decrease in memory in low fit OA, but not high fit OA. Wake after sleep onset did not significantly predict memory in either fitness group. No interaction was found when looking at sleep duration or self-report sleep quality in OA and no significant interactions were observed between fitness, sleep, and memory in YA. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results suggest that cardiorespiratory fitness may act as a protective buffer for memory in OA with poor sleep quality. These same was not true for YA suggesting that the protective effects of cardiorespiratory fitness on sleep-related memory impairments may be age specific.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".