Physical activity and cognitive function in individuals over 60 years of age: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether physical activity in later life is beneficial for maintenance of cognitive function. We performed a systematic review examining the effects of exercise on cognitive function in older individuals, and present possible mechanisms whereby physical activity may improve cognition. METHODS: Sources consisted of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and the University of Washington, School of Medicine Library Database, with a search conducted on August 15, 2012 for publications limited to the English language starting January 1, 2000. Randomized controlled trials including at least 30 participants and lasting at least 6 months, and all observational studies including a minimum of 100 participants for one year, were evaluated. All subjects included were at least 60 years of age. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-six studies reported a positive correlation between physical activity and maintenance or enhancement of cognitive function. Five studies reported a dose-response relationship between physical activity and cognition. One study showed a nonsignificant correlation. CONCLUSION: The preponderance of evidence suggests that physical activity is beneficial for cognitive function in the elderly. However, the majority of the evidence is of medium quality with a moderate risk of bias. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify the association between exercise and cognitive function and to determine which types of exercise have the greatest benefit on specific cognitive domains. Despite these caveats, the current evidence suggests that physical activity may help to improve cognitive function and, consequently, delay the progression of cognitive impairment in the elderly.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".