MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Exercise And Geriatric Depression: A Scoping Review Of The Research Evidence

2020· review· en· W3041802534 on OpenAlexaff
Samira Mehrabi, Laura E. Middleton

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFODepression (economics)Psychological interventionMedicineMental healthScopusPhysical therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geriatric depression is a common late-life mental health disorder that increases morbidity and mortality. It has been shown that exercise is effective in alleviating symptoms of geriatric depression. However, inconsistencies across studies and lack of optimal dose-response of exercise for improving geriatric depression have made it challenging to draw solid conclusions on the effectiveness of exercise in late-life depression. PURPOSE: To further investigate the moderators of the effectiveness of exercise on geriatric depression across the current body of evidence. METHODS: Based on the Arksey and O’Malley framework, an extensive search strategy was performed by exploring PubMed, Scopus, Sport Discus, PsycInfo, ERIC, and IBSS without limitations in the time frame. Eight systematic reviews with empirical results and evaluated the effect of exercise on depression among people aged 60 years and older were identified, and their individual studies were screened for inclusion. One additional study was found through the hand searching of reference lists. After full-text screening and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 21 studies were retained. RESULTS: The review revealed high variability in characteristics of the exercise interventions and outcome measures. Sample characteristics, nature of comparators, main outcome assessment, and baseline severity of depression also varied notably. Mind-body and aerobic exercises were found to significantly reduce geriatric depression. However, results on the relationship between resistance training and improvements in geriatric depression were inconsistent, and results of the intensity-related antidepressant effects of exercise interventions were mixed. Extensive use of self-reported questionnaires for the main outcome assessment and lack of evidence on the relationship between depression severity and observed effect were of the other important highlights of the review. CONCLUSION: Several literature gaps were found regarding the potential effect modifiers of exercise and geriatric depression. While acknowledging the complexity of establishing recommendations on the exercise variables and geriatric depression, future studies are required to understand the threshold effect of exercise for treating geriatric depression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0180.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→