MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412492539 · doi:10.1093/gerona/glaf154

Sex matters: the effect of physical activity on brain perfusion

2025· article· en· W4412492539 on OpenAlexaff
Brittany Intzandt, Safa Sanami, Julia Huck, Louis Bherer, Claudine Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series A · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité de SherbrookeConcordia UniversityOntario Brain InstituteYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral blood flowMedicineBrain agingGerontologyPathologicalPhysiologyHealthy agingPsychologyDemographyInternal medicineNeuroscienceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral blood flow (CBF) declines consistently in aging, and this decline is a critical component of several late-life diseases. Understanding why this occurs in normal aging, prior to pathological changes, is crucial. Physical activity (PA) is a powerful preventative tool to improve vascular health and preserves CBF in both sexes, though females may benefit most throughout the lifespan. There is currently limited knowledge, however, about what intensity is needed to derive benefit, and if there are sex differences in this relationship with intensity. Here, CBF and PA were investigated according to sex and age. A total of 573 participants aged 36 to 90 years were included from the Human Connectome Lifespan Aging. Linear and quadratic regressions were utilized to investigate relationships among CBF and PA intensities in each of the 4 groups. Vigorous PA in middle-aged males was related to greater CBF (P < .05). Older females showed benefit at all intensities (P < .05). Middle-aged females were least sensitive to the effects of PA. In all groups except older males, hippocampal CBF was only dependent on vigorous PA (P < .05). These results highlight the sex-specific relationship between CBF and PA, and the importance of tailoring recommendations to sex and lifespan stage, including addressing and updating current public health guidelines to maximize adoption and benefit, specific to brain health.

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)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series ASame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207