Effects of Music Therapy on Patients with Dementia—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia is an increasingly common syndrome and while pharmacotherapy is available, its potential benefit is limited, especially in non-cognitive outcomes. Non-pharmacotherapy such as music therapy is potentially associated with improved outcomes. We assessed the effects of music therapy on patients with dementia to evaluate its potential benefits on dementia. Two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for clinical trials, using the keywords "music therapy" and "dementia". Study outcomes included cognitive function, behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), and quality of life. A total of 82 studies were included, of which 43 were interventional clinical trials, and 39 were systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Significant improvements in verbal fluency occurred after music therapy, with significant reductions in anxiety, depression, and apathy. There were no significant improvements in cognition or daily functioning, and the results on quality of life and agitation were ambiguous. Limitations of studies included low patient numbers, lack of standardized music therapy, and high heterogeneity in outcomes. More large-scale clinical trials would allow for clearer conclusions on the benefits of music therapy in patients with dementia.
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 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".