Comparing Adapted Small-Sided Team Sports and Aerobic Exercise with or without Cognitive Games: Effects on Fitness and Cognition in Older Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of 12-week interventions on cognitive and physical fitness adaptations in older men with cognitive decline. We employed a randomized, parallel, and controlled design with five groups: team sports (TS), team sports with cognitive training (TS+C), aerobic exercise (A), aerobic exercise with cognitive training (A+C), and a control group (Control). Fifty older male volunteers (mean age: 69.3 ± 3.2 years) were included in the analysis. Interventions consisted of two 60-minute sessions per week for 12 weeks. Both TS and A groups participated in structured physical training, with TS involving 5v5 handball and football games, and A focusing on circuit training exercises. The TS+C and A+C groups additionally incorporated 20-minute cognitive training sessions using a software, targeting memory, attention, and executive functions. The control group maintained their usual routines. Cognitive function was evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Physical fitness was assessed through six tests of the Senior Fitness Test. Results revealed significant post-intervention differences in MoCA (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.622), chair stand (p = 0.038, ηp2 = 0.189), up and go (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.516), and 6-minute walk test (p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.333) scores among groups. Post hoc analysis showed that TS, TS+C, A, and A+C groups significantly improved in MoCA, chair stand, up and go, and 6-minute walk test compared to the control group (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed for arm curl, sit and reach, or back scratch tests. Our findings suggest that 12-week interventions incorporating team sports or aerobic exercise, with or without cognitive training, can improve cognitive function and physical fitness in older men with cognitive decline, and may contribute to strategies aimed at promoting healthy aging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".