MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111357457 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afaa270

Effects of dance on cognitive function in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3111357457 on OpenAlexafffund
Patricia Hewston, Courtney Kennedy, Sayem Borhan, Dafna Merom, Pasqualina Santaguida, George Ioannidis, Sharon Marr, Nancy Santesso, Lehana Thabane, Steven R. Bray, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
FundersMcMaster Institute for Research on Aging, McMaster University
KeywordsMedicineNeurocognitiveMeta-analysisPsycINFOCognitionRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleNeuropsychologyMEDLINEClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: dance is a mind-body activity that stimulates neuroplasticity. We explored the effect of dance on cognitive function in older adults. METHODS: we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycInfo databases from inception to August 2020 (PROSPERO:CRD42017057138). Inclusion criteria were (i) randomised controlled trials (ii) older adults (aged ≥ 55 years), (iii) intervention-dance and (iv) outcome-cognitive function. Cognitive domains were classified with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 Neurocognitive Framework. Meta-analyses were performed in RevMan5.3 and certainty of evidence with GradePro. RESULTS: we reviewed 3,997 records and included 11 studies (N = 1,412 participants). Seven studies included only healthy older adults and four included those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Dance interventions varied in frequency (1-3×/week), time (35-60 minutes), duration (3-12 months) and type. We found a mean difference (MD) = 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI) = 0.21-2.95) on the Mini Mental State Examination for global cognitive function (moderate-certainty evidence), and the Wechsler Memory Test for learning and memory had an MD = 3.02 (95% CI = 1.38-4.65; low-certainty evidence). On the Trail Making Test-A for complex attention, MD = 3.07 (95% CI = -0.81 to 6.95; high-certainty evidence) and on the Trail Making Test-B for executive function, MD = -4.12 (95% CI = -21.28 to 13.03; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses did not suggest consistently greater effects in older adults with MCI. Evidence is uncertain for language, and no studies evaluated social cognition or perceptual-motor function. CONCLUSIONS: dance probably improves global cognitive function and executive function. However, there is little difference in complex attention, and evidence also suggests little effect on learning and memory. Future research is needed to determine the optimal dose and if dance results in greater cognitive benefits than other types of physical activity and exercise.

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)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.029
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations107
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207