MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183885925 · doi:10.1089/acm.2021.0084

Can Tai Chi Improve Cognitive Function? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021· review· en· W3183885925 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisCognitionMedicineMEDLINESystematic reviewMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPhysical therapyCognitive impairmentInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Tai Chi (TC) is a traditional Chinese martial art with demonstrated beneficial effects on physical and mental health. In this study, the authors performed a systematic review to assess the efficiency of TC in different populations' cognitive function improvement. Design: The present systematic review utilized the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (1915-), Wanfang (1998-), VIP (1989-), Chinese Biomedicine databases (1978-), PubMed (1950-), Web of Science (1900-), Cochrane Library (1948-), Embase (1974-), EBSCOhost (1922-), and OVID (1996-) databases to search and identify relevant articles published in English and Chinese from the beginning of coverage through October 17, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from the beginning of coverage through October 17, 2020 in English and Chinese were retrieved from many indexing databases. Selected studies were graded according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention 5.1.0. The outcome measures of cognitive function due to traditional TC intervention were obtained. Meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.4 software. We follow the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Results: Thirty-three RCTs, with a total of 1808 participants, were included. The study showed that TC could progress global cognition when assessed in middle-aged as well as elderly patients suffering from cognitive and executive function impairment. The findings are as follows: Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale: mean difference (MD) = 3.23, 95% CI = 1.88–4.58, p < 0.00001, Mini-Mental State Exam: MD = 3.69, 95% CI = 0.31–7.08, p = 0.03, Trail Making Test-Part B: MD = −13.69, 95% CI = −21.64 to −5.74, p = 0.0007. The memory function of older adults assessed by the Wechsler Memory Scale was as follows: MD = 23.32, 95% CI = 17.93–28.71, p < 0.00001. The executive function of college students evaluated by E-prime software through the Flanker test was as follows: MD = −16.32, 95% CI = −22.71 to −9.94, p < 0.00001. Conclusion: The TC might have a positive effect on the improvement of cognitive function in middle-aged and elderly people with cognitive impairment as well as older adults and college students.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0560.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.288 · 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