Executive functions in male and female older adults with aligned levels of VO2max
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown a positive relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and executive functioning in older adults. Although this relationship has been well established, there seems to be a gap in the literature on the role of sex differences concerning CRF and executive functions. The current study aimed to assess the effect of sex in the relationship between CRF and cognition in older adults by stratifying the results to examine effects in males and females. METHODS: Ninety-six older adults (61 females) gave their written, informed consent to participate in this cross-sectional study. All participants underwent a maximal continuous graded exercise test on a cycle ergometer to assess their maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and a computerized Stroop task (naming, inhibition, and switching) to assess their executive functions. According to VO2max test results and the American College of Sports Medicine's guidelines, females and males were classified into higher-fit and lower-fit groups. A general linear model and estimated marginal means analyses were applied. RESULTS: Results showed no significant differences in the naming, inhibition and switching performance tests between male and female older adults (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the observed positive relationship between CRF and executive functioning, the data of the current study supports the idea that aerobic exercise, which typically increases CRF, is well-situated to improve executive functioning in older adults, irrespective of sex.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".