Effects of Dancing on Cognition in Healthy Older Adults: a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of research emphasizes the benefits of physical activity and exercise over the lifespan and especially in elderly populations. However, few studies have evaluated the impact of dance as a physical activity or exercise on cognition in healthy older adults. This review investigated if dance could be used as a promising alternative intervention to address physical inactivity and to cognitively stimulate older adults. This systematic review reports the effects of dancing in a healthy older adult population based on intervention studies using the EMBASE, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline databases. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to assess each article quality. Seven out of 99 articles met the inclusion criteria, representing a total of 429 older adults (70% women), with a mean age of 73.17 years old. Dance interventions, lasting between 10 weeks and 18 months, were related to either the maintenance or improvement of cognitive performance. This systematic review suggests that dance as an intervention in the elderly could help improve or maintain cognition. This review outlines some of the possible mechanisms by which dance could positively impact cognition in older adults, addresses shortcomings in the existing literature, and proposes future research avenues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".