MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409676023 · doi:10.1177/13872877251333613

Relationships among cardiorespiratory fitness, brain age, and neurodegeneration in older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment

2025· article· en· W4409676023 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Grace Derboghossian, Keenan A. Pituch, Mia Anthony, Dereck Salisbury, Feng Lin, Fang Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessNeurodegenerationDementiaCognitive declineAerobic exerciseCognitionEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performancePsychologyMedicineAudiologyInternal medicineNeuroscienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background There is growing evidence that cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) mitigates the likelihood of dementia caused by Alzheimer's disease and may underlie the cognitive benefits observed from aerobic exercise. Previous evidence further demonstrates neurodegeneration is the biological substrate for cognitive deterioration and younger brain age may protect the brain from the deleterious effects of neurodegeneration. However, little is known about the relationships between CRF, brain age, and neurodegeneration in older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). Objective The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine associations between CRF, brain age, and neurodegeneration among individuals with aMCI, using baseline data from the Aerobic exercise and Cognitive Training (ACT) trial, which examined the cognitive effects and underlying mechanisms of a 6-month ACT in older adults with aMCI. Methods CRF was measured with peak oxygen uptake (VO 2peak ), from a symptom-limited peak cycle-ergometer test. Brain age and hippocampal volume were obtained from structural magnetic resonance imaging. Brain age was estimated using brainageR. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were assessed. Linear regression models were used to analyze the relationships between CRF, brain age, and hippocampal volume, while adjusting for covariates. All analyses were conducted using R (version 4.3.2). Results The sample ( N = 141) averaged 73.66 ± 5.78 years of age, 16.91 ± 2.89 years of education, 27.46 ± 5.15 in BMI, and 23.49 ± 2.16 on Montreal Cognitive Assessment, with 53% male and 92.2% White. The mean brain age was 72.37 ± 7.89 years with 3157.31 ± 449.35 mm 3 hippocampal volume. No association was found between CRF, brain age, and hippocampal volume. Conclusions Future studies need to explore other brain indicators related to CRF. Trial Registry ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03313895 , NCT03313895, October 18, 2017

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207