MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117317833 · doi:10.1002/alz70858_106044

Cognitive Effects of Combined Aerobic Exercise and Cognitive Training in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment

2025· article· en· W7117317833 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fang Yu, Dereck Salisbury, Michael Todd, Lisa S. Chow, Anton P. Porsteinsson, Molly Maxfield, Rodney P. Joseph, Frank LoVecchio, Kathi L. Heffner, Feng Vankee Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerobic exerciseCognitionCognitive impairmentCognitive trainingAttritionAffect (linguistics)Effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Combined Aerobic exercise and Cognitive Training (ACT) may have synergistic effects on cognition, capitalizing on their different mechanisms of action. However, combined physical and cognitive activities showed mixed effects due to widely differing intervention components. To this end, the ACT Trial tested the efficacy of a 6-month combined cycling and speed of processing (SOP) cognitive training on cognition in community-dwelling older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment. METHODS: The ACT Trial used a 2x2 factorial design to randomize participants equally to four arms: control, cycling only, SOP only, and ACT (cycling+SOP). Executive function and episodic memory were measured with EXAMINER and Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) at baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months by trained data collectors blinded to group allocation. The mean of z-transformed scores of EXAMINER and BVMT-R was used to assess global cognition. Data were analyzed under intention-to-treat using linear mixed models with multiple imputed datasets in R. RESULTS: The sample (n = 146; 48% women; 91.8% White) was on average 73.72±5.73 years old, had 16.87±2.88 years of education, and scored 23.45±2.16 on Montreal Cognitive Assessment. All groups showed modest declines in outcomes from 3 months to 18 months (Cohen's ds=0.03-0.04 for executive function; ds=0.18-0.25 for delayed recall; ds=0.07-0.18 for global cognition). Baseline-adjusted ACT group means on outcomes (0.18 for executive function, 41.7 for memory, and 0.00 for global cognition at 6 months; 0.02, 42.5, 0.20, respectively at 18 months) did not differ significantly from those for cycling only (ps = .19, .56, and .90, respectively at 6 months; ps = .66, .81, and .65, respectively at 18 months) or SOP only (ps=.59, .13, and .56, respectively at 6 months; ps = .72, .43, and .48, respectively at 18 months). There were 10 possibly study-related, mild-to-moderate adverse events that did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: ACT did not show statistically significant superior effects on cognition relative to its components among older adults with aMCI, although observed values trended in the desired directions. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to higher attrition and lower dose delivery, especially in the ACT group, leading to smaller effect sizes than expected.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→