The Effect of Aerobic or Strength Training in Elderly with Cognitive Decline: The Fit4Alz Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the effects of aerobic and strength training methodologies, either combined with or without cognitive training, on mitigating cognitive decline. A total of 154 subjects were recruited (72.8 ± 6.1 years, 69% females) and were divided into four groups: i) strength plus cognitive training (STCT, n = 56); ii) strength training (ST, n = 23); iii) aerobic training (AT, n = 41); and iv) aerobic plus cognitive training (ATCT, n = 34). Subjects were previously cognitively assessed and showed cognitive decline (less than 26 points on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA). For 12 weeks, all groups performed 3 times a week, for 60 minutes, a training program corresponding to their attributed group. The MoCA test and the Senior Fitness test were applied at the beginning and the end of the intervention. A repeated-measures ANCOVA revealed significant time-by-group interactions for physical performance measures, including the 2-minute step-in-place (p = 0.026), arm curl (p < 0.001), chair sit-and-reach (p < 0.001), back-scratch (p < 0.001), 8-foot up-and-go (p < 0.001), and 6-minute walk tests (p < 0.001). However, no significant improvements were observed for cognitive function (MoCA, p = 0.242) or lower body strength (chair stand, p = 0.411). The AT group showed greater improvements in upper body strength compared to STCT and ST (p < 0.001; d = 0.698; p = 0.004; d = 0.598), while STCT significantly improved flexibility compared to ATCT (p < 0.001; d = 1.049). ATCT had the greatest improvements in aerobic endurance compared to STCT and ST (p = 0.004; d = 0.133; p < 0.001; d = 0.350). It was demonstrated that aerobic and strength training significantly improved overall physical performance in elderly individuals. However, no significant effects were observed on cognitive performance. Although these findings suggest that both aerobic and strength exercise, with or without cognitive training, improve overall physical fitness, further research is needed to determine its impact on cognitive performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".