Sex modifies the association between cardiorespiratory fitness and insulin resistance in adults at risk for Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines whether sex modifies the association between cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and insulin resistance in adults at risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). This study included n = 1131 (791 females, 340 males; mean age 64.7 years) cognitively unimpaired, nondiabetic participants from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer’s Prevention, a longitudinal observational cohort study enriched with persons with parental history of AD dementia. CRF was estimated using a validated equation, and the homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) quantified insulin resistance from blood samples. Cross-sectional linear regression models were assembled in a moderation framework to test the interaction between CRF and sex on HOMA-IR scores. Finally, sex-stratified analyses were performed to test within-group associations of CRF and HOMA-IR. CRF was negatively associated with HOMA-IR (β = −0.504, SE = 0.21, p = 0.018) and the interaction of CRF and sex was likewise significant (β = −0.849, SE = 0.18, p < 0.001). Stratified models showed that the magnitude of the association between CRF and HOMA-IR was over twice as strong among males than females (males: β = −0.837, SE = 0.26, p = 0.001; females: β = −0.400, SE = 0.19, p = 0.03). Among older adults at heightened risk for AD, CRF protects against insulin resistance; however, this association may be stronger in aging males than in females.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".