Aerobic exercise ameliorates cognitive function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of aerobic exercise on cognitive function in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of aerobic exercise intervention for cognitive function in older adults with MCI. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Science and Technology Periodical (VIP) databases from their inception to 31 January 2015, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 3) and the reference lists of all retrieved articles. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, older adults with MCI, aerobic exercises compared with no specific exercise intervention for global cognitive ability and any specific domains of cognition. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan V.5.3 software using the fixed-effect model for the available data without significant heterogeneity, or the random-effect model was used if appropriate. RESULTS: 11 studies were identified involving 1497 participants. Meta-analysis showed that aerobic exercise significantly improved global cognitive ability (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores: MD=0.98, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.45, p<0.0001; Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores: MD=2.7, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.29, p=0.0009); weakly, positively improve memory (immediately recall: SMD=0.29, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.46, p=0.0005; delay recall: SMD=0.22, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.34, p=0.0005). No significant improvement was found in other domains of cognition. CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic exercise led to an improvement in global cognitive ability and had a positive effect with a small effect size on memory in people with MCI. However, owing to the limitations of the included studies, these findings should be interpreted cautiously.
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 | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".