Modulating effects of fitness and physical activity on Alzheimer's disease: Implications from a six-month randomized controlled sports intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Physical activity and fitness are major targets in Alzheimer's disease (AD) preventive research. However, current research is heterogeneous and often disregards the relationship between these parameters and disease outcomes. Objective To assess the effects of physical activity and fitness on AD within the context of a multicomponent sports intervention. Methods 46 participants with early-stage AD (mean age 70 ± 7 years, 18 women, mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score 19±5) were included in a six-month randomized controlled trial (Dementia-MOVE), participating in either a multicomponent sports intervention or a control condition with a psychoeducational program. The modulating effect of fitness and physical activity changes on AD outcome parameters such as cognition, function and cerebral brain structure from 3T-MRI were examined using multiple linear regression analyses. Results An increase in VO 2 max was associated with assignment to the intervention group ( p = 0.016), lower baseline fitness ( p = 0.001), and an increased rate of physical activity ( p = 0.046). Only in the intervention group, ΔVO 2 max had a beneficial modulating effect on the MoCA score ( p = 0.039), the executive functions ( p = 0.017) and regional brain volumes of the temporal lobe, e.g., the hippocampus ( p = 0.044). High daily step count was associated with preserved executive functions ( p = 0.001), and caregivers’ quality of life ( p ≤ 0.001) in the overall sample. Conclusions Our results confirm that multicomponent exercise improves cardiorespiratory fitness in AD, which is associated with advantageous developments in cognitive performance and preservation of brain structure. These findings suggest that especially patients with comparably worse cognition and fitness benefit and should be encouraged for activity engagement.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".