MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410482892 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf236.454

Sex differences in the associations between cardiorespiratory fitness determinants and cognitive functions in older with cardiovascular risk factors

2025· article· en· W4410482892 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre‐Edouard Magnan, Thomas Vincent, Flavie Gaudreau-Majeau, François Besnier, Emma Gabrielle Dupuy, Christine Gagnon, H Mohammadi, Martin Juneau, Daniel Gagnon, Claudine Gauthier, Tudor Vrinceanu, Anil Nigam, Mathieu Gayda, Louis Bherer

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessCognitionGerontologyCardiovascular healthDemographyPhysical therapyInternal medicineDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The link between VO2max and cognition in older adults with cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) remains unclear, especially regarding sex differences. Previous findings suggest that cardiac determinants of VO2max primarily influence executive functions (EF) and processing speed (PS). Understanding these sex-specific differences may enhance personalized approaches to cognition and fitness. Purpose This study examined sex differences in the associations between ventilatory, cardiac, and peripheral determinants of VO2max and cognitive functions in older adults with CVRFs. We hypothesized that these associations would vary by sex. Methods 204 participants (148 women and 56 men, 70±6 years) with CVRFs underwent a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test with gas exchange analyses and cardiac hemodynamic measurements by impedance cardiography. VO2max determinants, included ventilatory (alveolar ventilation (VA), oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES), minute ventilation/carbon dioxide slope (VE/VCO2)), cardiac (cardiac power (CP), cardiac index (CI)) and peripheral determinants (ratio of the increase in oxygen uptake to the increase in work rate (VO2/Watts), arteriovenous difference in O2 (C(a-v)O2)) were calculated. EF and PS were assessed via the DSST, TMT and Stroop tests. Multiple regressions adjusted for age and education between all VO2max determinants and cognitive functions were performed separately for women and men. Results In women, Stroop naming was associated with VA (p<.01), OUES (p<.05), CI (p<.001), and C(a-v)O2 (p<.001, R²=.32). In men, it was linked to VE/VCO2 (p<.01) and C(a-v)O2 (p<.05, R²=.30). Stroop reading was associated with C(a-v)O2 (p<.05, R²=.41) in men, with no associations in women. Stroop inhibition was linked to CI (p<.05) and C(a-v)O2 (p<.05, R²=.21) in women and to OUES (p<.05, R²=.34) in men. Stroop switching was associated with VE/VCO2 (p<.05) and C(a-v)O2 (p<.05, R²=.35) in women, with no significant predictors in men. PS, assessed with the DSST, was linked to VA (p<.05), OUES (p<.05), and VO2/Watts (p<.05, R²=.49) in men, with no associations in women. For TMT A, OUES (p<.05) and CI (p<.05, R²=.47) were predictors in men, with no associations in women. TMT B was linked to OUES (p<.05) and CP (p<.05, R²=.29) in women, and to CP in men (p<.01, R²=.40). Conclusion Sex-specific patterns were observed between VO2max determinants and cognition. In women, all determinants except VA and VO2/Watts were predictors of EF, while in men EF was linked to CP and OUES. For PS, ventilatory (VA, OUES), cardiac (CI), and peripheral (C(a-v)O2) determinants were associated in women, while in men PS was linked to all determinants. These findings highlight the importance of considering sex-specific differences in the associations between VO2max determinants and cognition, offering valuable insights for developing individualized exercise interventions to maintain and improve cognition in older adults with CVRFs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207