Effect of Cognitive Training on Daily Function in Older People without Major Neurocognitive Disorder: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing interest in the effect of non-pharmacological treatments on preserving cognition and function in older adults without major neurocognitive disorder (dementia). However, its effect on everyday function in terms of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to examine whether cognitive training, independent of other interventions, can improve IADL function in older adults without major neurocognitive disorder. We searched multiple databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PSYCINFO and found thirteen studies that met our inclusion criteria with 7130 participants in total. Six out of thirteen studies reported a significant change on validated IADL assessment. On subgroup analysis, five studies included older adults with normal cognition and one included mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Eleven out of twelve studies showed improvement in measures of cognition. None of the studies described changes in the ability to live independently. While variation in study protocol, outcome measurement, and effect size reporting precluded further inferential statistical analysis, our review found a sizable number of studies showing improvement in IADL. Cognitive training may have some benefit in improving IADL function in older adults without major neurocognitive disorder. Future long-term studies focusing on maintained IADL function and preserved independence are needed.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".