MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736180339 · doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0529-x

Effects of computerized cognitive training on neuroimaging outcomes in older adults: a systematic review

2017· review· en· W2736180339 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFondation pour la Recherche sur Alzheimer
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLDementiaCognitionNeuroimagingMEDLINESystematic reviewPopulationCognitive trainingClinical psychologyRehabilitationGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryPhysical therapyPsychological interventionPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, the population is aging and the number of individuals diagnosed with dementia is rising rapidly. Currently, there are no effective pharmaceutical cures. Hence, identifying lifestyle approaches that may prevent, delay, or treat cognitive impairment and dementia in older adults is becoming increasingly important. Computerized Cognitive Training (CCT) is a promising strategy to combat cognitive decline. Yet, the underlying mechanisms of the effect of CCT on cognition remain poorly understood. Hence, the primary objective of this systematic review was to examine peer-reviewed literature ascertaining the effect of CCT on both structural and functional neuroimaging measures among older adults to gain insight into the underlying mechanisms by which CCT may benefit cognitive function. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we used the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Two independent reviewers abstracted data using pre-defined terms. These included: main study characteristics such as the type of training (i.e., single- versus multi-domain), participant demographics (age ≥ 50 years; no psychiatric conditions), and the inclusion of neuroimaging outcomes. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess quality of all studies included in this systematic review. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in this systematic review, with four studies including multiple MRI sequences. Results of this systematic review are mixed: CCT was found to increase and decrease both brain structure and function in older adults. In addition, depending on region of interest, both increases and decreases in structure and function were associated with behavioural performance. CONCLUSIONS: Of all studies included in this systematic review, results from the highest quality studies, which were two randomized controlled trials, demonstrated that multi-domain CCT could lead to increases in hippocampal functional connectivity. Further high quality studies that include an active control, a sample size calculation, and an appropriate training dosage, are needed to confirm these findings and their relation to cognition.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.324 · 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