High-intensity interval or circuit-based strength training effects on physical and cognitive functioning for community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".