Is There Evidence for Cognitive Intervention in Alzheimer Disease? A Systematic Review of Efficacy, Feasibility, and Cost-Effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have shown that cognitive intervention may be beneficial for people with Alzheimer disease (AD), but literature reviews conducted so far, have yielded mixed and inconclusive results. In this work, through an extensive bibliographic search, we aim: (1) to analyze the efficacy of cognitive intervention in patients diagnosed with AD; (2) to provide an estimate of the feasibility of cognitive intervention; and (3) to review available cost-effectiveness data of this approach. Four randomized controlled trials of cognitive intervention, for patients diagnosed with AD that incorporated cognitive intervention and mock intervention control conditions, were included in the analysis. Only the domain of global cognitive functioning, as measured by Mini-Mental State Examination, showed significant intervention effects. No effects were observed in the remaining domains. Concerning feasibility, high rates of completion and adherence were found. A single randomized controlled trial, with unspecified dementia, suggested cognitive intervention to be cost-effective. Given the currently available dearth of well-controlled and focused trials in AD, these results should be carefully interpreted and remain to be confirmed in the future. There is a clear need for more high-quality research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".