Mechanisms of the Beneficial Effects of Exercise on Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor Expression in Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is a key molecule in promoting neurogenesis, dendritic and synaptic health, and neuronal survival, plasticity, and excitability, all of which are disrupted in neurological and cognitive disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Extracellular aggregates of amyloid-β (Aβ) in the form of plaques and intracellular aggregates of hyperphosphorylated tau protein have been identified as major pathological insults in AD brain, along with immune dysfunction, oxidative stress, and other toxic stressors. Although aggregated Aβ and tau lead to decreased brain BDNF expression, early losses in BDNF prior to plaque and tangle formation may be due to other insults such as oxidative stress and contribute to early synaptic dysfunction. Physical exercise, on the other hand, protects synaptic and neuronal structure and function, with increased BDNF as a major mediator of exercise-induced enhancements in cognitive function. Here, we review recent literature on mechanisms behind exercise induced BDNF upregulation and its effects on improving learning and memory and on Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Mechanisms include elevations in peripheral BDNF-inducing hormones such as osteocalcin, FNDC5/irisin, and lactate. The fundamental mechanisms of how exercise impacts BDNF and cognition are unclear but are a prerequisite to developing new biomarkers and therapies to delay or prevent cognitive decline.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".