Comparative effects of aerobic walking and resistance exercise on cognitive function in older adults: A quasi-experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive decline threatens independence and quality of life in older adults. While exercise is recognized as a non-pharmacological strategy to preserve cognition, prior studies often neglect baseline cognitive function and rarely compare aerobic and resistance exercise. This gap limits understanding of which modality is more effective for maintaining cognitive health in later life. Research Objectives: This study aimed to determine the effects of aerobic walking exercise (AWE) and resistance exercise (RE) on cognitive function in older adults. Methods: A quasi-experimental pretest–posttest design was applied to 45 participants (23 males and 22 females), aged 60-69 years. The participants were allocated using an ordinal pairing technique to ensure comparable baseline scores, with 22 in the AWE group and 23 in the RE group. Both groups completed 24 exercise sessions over eight weeks (three times per week). Cognitive function was measured with the Indonesian version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-Ina) using a single-blind procedure. Data were analyzed using a paired t-test for within-group and one-way ANCOVA for between-group at a 5% significance level. Findings/Results: Both the AWE and RE groups showed significant improvements (P < 0.001) in MoCA-Ina outcome measures. There was a significant difference between the groups (P-value < 0.05), with a moderate effect size (ƞp² = 0.110). RE yielded a greater improvement (MoCA-Ina score increase of 2.21 points, 11.99%) than AWE (MoCA-Ina score increase of 1.27 points, 7.06%). Conclusion: RE provides a greater than AWE improvement in cognitive function in older adults. These findings support the incorporation of public health programs at community health centers, with adherence to appropriate exercise safety principles. Further research is required to confirm the impact on non-exercise participants, cultural applicability, and populations with comorbidities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".