The Effects of Dual-Task Training on Cognitive and Physical Functions in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Individuals with Alzheimer disease and dementia experience cognitive decline and reduction in physical capabilities. Engaging in cognitive challenges and physical exercises is effective in reducing age-related cognitive and physical decline. It is believed that physical activity in the context of cognitive challenges might enhance the process of neurogenesis in the adult brain, but how effective are such interventions? Is there enough evidence to support that dual-task training is more effective than cognitive or physical training alone? To what extent can such training improve cognitive and physical functions in patients at various stages of cognitive decline? METHODOLOGY: This systematic review with meta-analysis summarizes the emerging evidence of dual-task training for enhancing cognitive and physical functions in older individuals with cognitive impairment, dementia or Alzheimer's disease. A systematic search was carried out in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library with the following search terms: randomized control trials, dual-task training, SCD, MCI, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies with 2,221 participants were identified. The results of dual-task tanning intervention are summarized as change in global cognitive function; SMD = 0.24, (P= 0.002), memory; SMD = 0.28, (P = 0.000), executive function; SMD = 0.35, (P = 0.000), attention; SMD = -0.19, (P = 0.1), gait speed; SMD = 0.26, (P = 0.007), dual-task cost; SMD 0.56, (P = 0.000), and balance; SMD 0.36, (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Primary analysis showed a small-to-medium positive effect of dual-task training interventions on cognitive functions and medium-to-large positive effect on gait functions and balance.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".