MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Physical activity programs for persons with dementia

2008· review· en· W1851821852 on OpenAlexaff
Dorothy Forbes, Sean C. Forbes, Debra Morgan, Maureen Markle‐Reid, Jennifer Wood, Ivan Culum

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicinePsycINFOCINAHLCochrane LibraryGerontologyMEDLINEQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialPsychiatryPsychological interventionNursingDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence that physical activity delays the onset of dementia in healthy older adults and slows down cognitive decline to prevent the onset of cognitive disability. Studies using animal models suggest that physical activity has the potential to attenuate the pathophysiology of dementia. 'Physical activity' refers to 'usual care plus physical activity'. OBJECTIVES: Primary: do physical activity programs maintain or improve cognition, function, behaviour, depression, and mortality compared to usual care in older persons with dementia?Secondary: do physical activity programs have an indirect positive impact on family caregivers' health, quality of life, and mortality compared to family caregivers of older persons with dementia who received usual care alone? Do physical activity programs reduce the use of health care services (e.g., visits to the emergency department) compared to usual care in older persons with dementia and their family caregiver? SEARCH STRATEGY: The trials were identified from searches of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS on 9 September 2007 using the search terms: exercise OR "physical activity" OR cycling OR swim* OR gym* OR walk* OR danc* OR yoga OR "tai chi". SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant, randomized controlled trials in which physical activity programs were compared with usual care for the effect on managing or improving cognition, function, behaviour, depression, and mortality in people with dementia of any type and degree of severity. Secondary outcomes related to the family caregiver(s) included quality of life, mortality, and use of health care services were intended to be examined. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance and methodological quality, and extracted data from the selected trials. These were pooled were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials met the inclusion criteria. However, only two trials were included in the analyses because the required data from the other two trials were not made available. Only one meta-analysis was conducted. The results from this review suggest that there is insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of physical activity programs in managing or improving cognition, function, behaviour, depression, and mortality in people with dementia. Few trials have examined these important outcomes. In addition, family caregiver outcomes and use of health care services were not reported in any of the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to be able to say whether or not physical activity programs are beneficial for people with dementia.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations185
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207