Effects of 5-Year Exercise Training on Cognition in Older Adults: 10-Years Follow-Up from the Generation 100 Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The rapid aging of the global population is expected to lead to an increase in the incidence and prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases. Endurance exercise training is considered one of the most effective forms of prevention against neurodegenerative diseases. This study investigated the effects of a 5-year exercise training intervention at varying intensities on cognitive function in healthy older adults. METHODS: 1486 healthy older men (n = 735) and women (n = 751) aged 70-77 years from Trondheim, Norway, were randomly assigned to high-intensity interval training (HIIT, n = 382), moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT, n = 367), or a control group (n = 737) following the national physical activity (PA) guidelines. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score after 3, 5 and 10 years. A linear mixed model was used to estimate the effect of the exercise intervention between the groups. Measures of physical health, such as cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), and PA level was also measured. RESULTS: After 10 years, we observed no significant differences in MoCA scores between the exercise training groups and the control group, despite variations in exercise intensity and good adherence to the exercise interventions. The HIIT group consistently showed higher CRF throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: While structured aerobic exercise training over 5 years improved physiological health markers in healthy older adults, its impact on mitigating cognitive decline was limited. Further long-term training studies in different populations are needed to better understand the link between exercise training and cognition in older adults. Trial Registration The Generation 100 Study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01666340), registered on 21 August 2012: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01666340.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".