Effects of eccentric versus stretching exercise training on cognitive function of older women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercises focusing on eccentric contractions may stimulate the brain better, improving cognitive function. We tested the hypothesis that executive function and attention would improve more after eccentric resistance exercise (ECC) than stretching exercise (STRETCH) training. Healthy older women (65–75 years) underwent either ECC ( n = 14) or STRETCH ( n = 14) intervention for 8 weeks. ECC consisted of seven exercises emphasizing eccentric contractions while STRETCH performed 12 stretching exercises, with supervised sessions undertaken twice weekly accompanied by a home-based program. Executive function and attention were assessed using the Stroop test of color naming (STCN) and conflicting color words, symbol digit modalities test, digit span test (DST), and trail making tests (TMT-A and TMT-B), and six physical function tests were undertaken before and after the 8-week training period. Fasting blood samples were obtained before and after the training. A significant ( p < 0.05) group × time interaction effect was evident for STCN, DST, and TMT-A, with only ECC showing improvements (DST:14.7 ± 27% and TMT-A:10.2 ± 12%) from pre- to post-training. No significant changes in other cognitive function tests were found for either group. All physical function tests except one-leg balance test showed greater improvement ( p < 0.05) for ECC than STRETCH. No significant changes in blood lipid profile and brain-derived neurotrophic factor were found, but serum glucose concentration and glycosylated hemoglobin decreased ( p < 0.05) in ECC. These results suggest that a short-term body-weight eccentric exercise intervention was effective in enhancing components of cognitive and physical function of older women and may prove a useful strategy in combating age-related decline in cognitive and physical function.
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 | 0.000 | 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".