Resistance exercise improves working memory, but not set shifting in older adults at risk for diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults at risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) experience cognitive decline and brain health abnormalities, highlighting the need for early interventions. Resistance exercise training (RT) holds promise as a strategy to improve executive function, mitigate T2D risk factors, and support neuroplasticity, especially in aging. This study evaluated the effects of a 6-month RT intervention compared to balance-and-tone (BAT; active control) exercise on cognitive outcomes, particularly set shifting, physiological measures, and biomarkers in older adults at risk for T2D. METHODS: Sixty community-dwelling adults (aged 60-80 years) with risk factors for diabetes (body mass index ≥25, fasting glucose 6.1-7.0 mmol/L, or CANRISK score ≥21) were randomized to twice-weekly RT or BAT classes. Primary outcomes included set-shifting performance and cognitive flexibility (Trail Making Test [TMT] Part B; TMT-B minus TMT-A). Secondary outcomes encompassed working memory (Digit Span Backward), global cognitive scores (Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale [ADAS-Cog-11]) and associative learning using a novel Bussey-Saksida touchscreen cognitive task nearly identical to its rodent version. Additionally, Measures of mobility, fitness, glycemic control, and biomarkers were examined (brain derived neurotrophic factor, BDNF, insulin growth factor-1, IGF-1). An ANCOVA and repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess intervention effects on outcomes at endpoint and over time, respectively, with baseline performance and adherence as covariates (p <0.050 significant). RESULTS: RT improved working memory (Digit Span Backward; p = 0.024) compared to BAT at endpoint, with a trend toward enhanced cognitive flexibility over time (TMT-B minus TMT-A; p = 0.049). No significant differences were observed in global cognitive scores (MoCA, ADAS-Cog-11). Bussey-Saksida touchscreen tasks were adapted and validated for human use. Participants showed low accuracy on paired associative learning (54-64% ± 4% accuracy), irrespective of training group. RT improved lower body strength over time (p =0.036), with no changes in glycemic levels. IGF-1 levels decreased in the RT group (p = 0.037), with no changes in BDNF. CONCLUSIONS: Resistance exercise training offers targeted cognitive benefits in older adults at risk for diabetes, suggesting its potential as an intervention to address both T2D risk factors and cognitive decline. Further studies should explore long-term impacts on brain structure and function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".