MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406219185 · doi:10.1002/alz.091114

Supporting Aging through Green Exercise (SAGE): Comparing the cognitive effects of outdoor versus indoor aerobic exercise in older adults with mild cognitive impairment—A 12‐week proof‐of‐concept randomized controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4406219185 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matt W Noseworthy, Nathan Wei, Sofia Grant, Jammy Zou, Eli Puterman, Todd C. Handy, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialAerobic exerciseCognitive impairmentCognitionPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyGerontologyMedicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) shows that aerobic exercise (AE) can benefit cognitive function among older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Growing research suggests that outdoor, natural (i.e., “green”) environments, compared with indoor or built environments, may augment the health benefits of exercise. However, the potential cognitive benefits of green exercise are unclear. We compared the effects of AE performed in an outdoor, green environment (O‐Ex) versus indoor AE (I‐Ex) on executive functions among older adults with MCI. Methods A two‐arm parallel, single‐blinded, 12‐week proof‐of‐concept RCT. 72 community‐dwelling adults aged 65‐80 years with MCI were randomized (1:1) to either O‐Ex (n = 36) or I‐Ex (n = 36). Each arm involved two group‐based training sessions per week. Each session involved 10 min warm‐up, 40 min moderate‐intensity AE (progressing from 45%–75% of heart rate reserve), and 10 min cool‐down. We monitored exercise intensity using heart rate monitors and Borg’s 20‐point Rating of Perceived Exertion. AE consisted of outdoor walking in an urban forest (O‐Ex) or indoor treadmill walking or stationary cycling (I‐Ex). We measured working memory using the National Institutes of Health Toolbox (NIHTB) List Sorting Test and the Verbal Digits Forward and Backward Test. We measured set shifting and response inhibition using the NIHTB Dimensional Change Card Sort Test and Flanker Test, respectively. We performed a complete case analysis using a one‐way analysis of covariance to compare groupwise changes in executive functions (NIHTB corrected T‐score), with baseline outcome score and baseline Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score as covariates. Overall alpha was ≤0.05. Results Mean baseline MoCA score was 22.36 (SD = 2.55). Mean age was 74.08 years (SD = 3.92). There were 26 males and 46 females. The attrition rate was 12.5% (O‐Ex = 5; I‐Ex = 4). At 12 weeks, after adjusting for baseline outcome and baseline MoCA scores, O‐Ex had significantly better scores than I‐Ex for set shifting (estimated mean difference: 7.46; 95% CI: [2.69, 12.23]; p = 0.003) and response inhibition (estimated mean difference: 3.81; 95% CI: [0.61, 7.01]; p = 0.021), but not for working memory. Conclusions Aerobic exercise performed outdoors in nature, compared with indoor aerobic exercise, may provide greater cognitive benefits among older adults 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→