MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211199410 · doi:10.1101/2022.02.10.22270669

High-intensity interval or circuit-based strength training effects on physical and cognitive functioning for community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review protocol

2022· review· en· W4211199410 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Morgan, Kenneth S. Noguchi, Ada Tang, Jennifer J. Heisz, Lehana Thabane, Julie Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionCognitionMedicinePhysical therapyMEDLINESystematic reviewHigh-intensity interval trainingAdverse effectMeta-analysisCognitive skillPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGerontologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background High-intensity interval or circuit-based strength training utilizes brief intense periods of strengthening exercises interspersed with rest/light activity or performed in a continuous circuit. The physical and cognitive effects of this time-efficient approach in community-dwelling older adults have not been systematically reviewed. Objectives To determine the effects of high-intensity interval or circuit-based strength training interventions on physical and cognitive functioning for community-dwelling older adults, and the associated adherence, retention, and adverse event rates. Methods Six databases will be searched from inception to November 2021; MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AgeLine, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. To assess physical and/or cognitive functioning effects, randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs and Q-RCTs) of high-intensity interval or circuit-based strengthening interventions in community-dwelling older adults, utilizing any comparator, will be included. The above criteria will be extended to include non-randomized study designs to assess adherence, retention, and adverse events. All screening, data extraction and risk of bias will be assessed by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed utilizing the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for randomized and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Qualitative synthesis will be used to present information on adherence, retention, and adverse event rates. Qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis will be used to present physical and cognitive functioning effects depending on which method is deemed appropriate for the various outcomes. Conclusion This systematic review will be the first to summarize the physical and/or cognitive effects, adherence, retention, and adverse events reported in high-intensity interval and circuit-based strengthening interventions for community-dwelling older adults. Systematic review registration number CRD42021284010

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.014
Bibliometrics0.0180.016
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.006

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207