Moderate intensity intermittent lifestyle physical activity is associated with better executive function in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive functions are among the first cognitive abilities to decline with age and age-related executive function slowing predisposes older adults to cognitive disorders and disease. Intermittent Lifestyle Physical Activity (ILPA) reflects brief, unplanned activity that occurs during routine daily activities and is operationalized as activity bouts <60s. Our understanding of short bouts of habitual physical activity and executive functions is limited. We tested the hypothesis that greater amounts of ILPA in moderate and vigorous intensity domains would be associated with better executive function in older adults. Forty older adults (26 females, 68 ± 6, >55 years; body mass index: 26.6 ± 4.3 kg/m2) completed a Trail-Making-Task and wore an activPAL 24-hr/day for 6.2 ± 1.8-days. For each intensity, total time and time spent in bouts <60 s were determined. Trail A (processing speed) and Trail B (cognitive flexibility) were completed in 25.8 ± 8.2 s and 63.2 ± 26.2 s, respectively. Non-parametric Spearman's rank correlations report that moderate ILPA (3.2 ± 3.2 min/day) and total-moderate physical activity (20.1 ± 16.0 min/day) were associated with faster Trail A (total-moderate physical activity: ρ=−0.48; moderate-ILPA: ρ = −0.50; both, p < 0.003) and Trail B time (total-moderate physical activity: ρ = 0.36; moderate-ILPA: ρ = −0.46; both, p < 0.020). However, the results show no evidence of an association with either vigorous physical activity or light physical activity (total time or ILPA bouts: all, p > 0.180). Moderate physical activity accumulated in longer bouts (>60 s) was not associated with Trail B time (p = 0.201). Therefore, more total moderate physical activity and shorter bouts (<60 s) may result in better executive functions in older adults.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".