Evidence-Based Exercise Recommendations for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the publishing of our meta-analysis evaluating the effects of randomized exercise trials on cognitive function of Older Adults with Cognitive Impairments (OAwCIs) (Heyn et al 2004), several meta-analysis reviews were published addressing similar question. We currently appraised this evidence and preliminary synthesis of twelve, well-designed meta-analysis reports resulted in 193 RCTs and 15,614 participants over the age of 65 years old diagnosed with MCI or Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Exercise prescription paradigms averaged 156 minutes per week for 20-week. The combined cognitive function outcome mean effect size was medium; 0.67 (0.06-1.34 95% CI). Grounded in this unique umbrella study results, sustained and prolonged exercise training might provide an effective intervention for the maintenance or enhancement of cognitive function for MCI and AD. This comprehensive meta-analysis umbrella offers valuable and strong exercise recommendations for OAwCIs. This study results will be of great significance to professionals involved in the care of OAwCIs.
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 | 0.021 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".