P3‐192: Resistance training promotes cognitive functions and functional plasticity in senior women with probable mild cognitive impairment: A six‐month randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) represents a window of opportunity to delay or prevent the onset of dementia. Exercise is one promising intervention strategy. However, the efficacy of resistance versus aerobic training to improve cognitive functions in seniors with MCI has not previously been examined. In this 6-month randomized controlled trial, 86 women aged 70–80 years with probable MCI were assigned to one of three groups: twice-weekly resistance training, twice-weekly aerobic training, or twice-weekly balance and tone exercises (control group). The primary outcome measure was the specific executive cognitive function of conflict resolution and selective attention, as measured by Stroop Test performance. Secondary outcomes included set-shifting, working memory, associative memory, regional patterns of functional brain plasticity, everyday problem solving ability, general balance and mobility, and general cardiovascular capacity. Compared with the balance and tone group, the resistance training group significantly improved their performance on the Stroop Test. In addition, the resistance training group improved performance on the associative memory task, which corresponded to increased functional plasticity in three regions of cortex essential for associative memory performance - the right lingual and occipital fusiform gyri and the right frontal pole. In contrast, the aerobic training group showed significantly improved general balance and mobility, and cardiovascular capacity post-intervention. Our results suggest that twice-weekly resistance training may be a promising strategy to alter the trajectory of cognitive decline in seniors with MCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".