Exercise for Cognitive Symptoms in Depression: A Systematic Review of Interventional Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of exercise on cognition in depression as well as the impact of potential moderators and intervention type. METHOD: Controlled and uncontrolled interventional studies that described an exercise intervention and cognitive outcomes in participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) were included following a search of Pubmed, Ovid Medline, PsycInfo and Embase from inception to January 2017. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate Hedges' g using a random-effects model. Meta-regression explored the relationships among age, baseline cognition, frequency and duration of exercise, and cognitive outcomes. Subgroup analyses were also conducted according to type and intensity of exercise interventions. RESULTS: = 0%) or on individual cognitive domains. Meta-regression analyses failed to find significant relationships among participant age, baseline cognition, number of exercise sessions per wk, duration of exercise per wk, total duration of exercise during the intervention, or improvement in global cognition. Interventions combining physical with cognitive activity significantly improved global cognition ( P = 0.048), whereas low-intensity interventions were also positive ( P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: No impact of physical exercise was found on cognition in MDD overall. However, we found that interventions combining physical and cognitive activities had a positive impact, and that lower-intensity interventions, where adherence was improved, also impacted positively. There remains a lack of high-quality data in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".