Higher Cardiorespiratory Fitness Is Linked To Better Cognitive Function In Young Female University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous studies have shown a strong link between cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max) and executive functioning, throughout the life span. Although this relationship has been well established, the role of cardiorespiratory fitness on cognition in young female university students is still unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness and cognition in young female university students. METHODS: For this study, we recruited 32 female university students and split them into two groups based on their cardiorespiratory fitness (Higher- fit (HF): n = 14, age = 21 ± 3 yr, height = 1.68 ± 0.05 m, weight = 69 ± 6 kg; Lower-fit (LF): n = 18, age = 22 ± 2 yr, height = 1.68 ± 0.07 m, weight = 74.2 ± 20.4 kg). The recruitment of HF and LF students was performed to ensure a large range of cardiorespiratory fitness scores. To assess cardiorespiratory fitness, all LF underwent a cycle ergometer maximal continuous graded exercise test, and all HF completed the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test. Furthermore, both groups completed a trail-making test (trail A and trail B), and a computerized Stroop task (Naming, Inhibition, and Switching) to assess their executive functions. RESULTS: Results show that HF students had a significantly higher VO2max than the LF students (45.67 ± 2.75 vs 34.31 ± 7.41 ml/kg/min, p < 0.001). Also, the HF students had better performance than LF students in the Trail B (32.22 ± 9.47 vs 41.42 ± 14.18 s, p = 0.036), Naming (533.97 ± 71.91 vs 603.19 ± 104.29 ms, p = 0.042), Inhibition (616.69 ± 72.56 vs 700.17 ± 89.94 ms, p = 0.008), and Switching (810.02 ± 119.82 vs 1029.69 ± 163.52 ms, p < 0.001) components of the Stroop task. Furthermore, Pearson correlation analysis on all the participants reveal that VO2max levels of the participants was negatively correlated to the Inhibition (r = -0.452, p = .009) and the Switching (r = -0.559. p < 0.001) components of the computerized Stroop task. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the results of this study revealed a relationship between a higher level of cardiorespiratory fitness and improved cognitive function in young female university students.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".