Aerobic exercise for adult patients with major depressive disorder in mental health services: A systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although exercise is associated with depression relief, the effects of aerobic exercise (AE) interventions on clinically depressed adult patients have not been clearly supported. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the antidepressant effects of AE versus nonexercise comparators exclusively for depressed adults (18–65 years) recruited through mental health services with a referral or clinical diagnosis of major depression. Eleven e-databases and bibliographies of 19 systematic reviews were searched for relevant randomized controlled clinical trials. A random effects meta-analysis (Hedges’ g criterion) was employed for pooling postintervention scores of depression. Heterogeneity and publication bias were examined. Studies were coded considering characteristics of participants and interventions, outcomes and comparisons made, and study design; accordingly, sensitivity and subgroup analyses were calculated. Across 11 eligible trials (13 comparisons) involving 455 patients, AE was delivered on average for 45 min, at moderate intensity, three times/week, for 9.2 weeks and showed a significantly large overall antidepressant effect (g = –0.79, 95% confidence interval = –1.01, –0.57, P < 0.00) with low and nonstatistically significant heterogeneity (I2 = 21%). No publication bias was found. Sensitivity analyses revealed large or moderate to large antidepressant effects for AE (I2 ≤ 30%) among trials with lower risk of bias, trials with short-term interventions (up to 4 weeks), and trials involving individual preferences for exercise. Subgroup analyses revealed comparable effects for AE across various settings and delivery formats, and in both outpatients and inpatients regardless symptom severity. Notwithstanding the small number of trials reviewed, AE emerged as an effective antidepressant intervention.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 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 it