Effect of Exercise on the Cognitive Function of Older Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Aging and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are important risk factors for the development of cognitive deterioration and dementia. The objective of this research was to investigate the effects of an exercise intervention on cognitive function in older T2DM patients. Methods Eight literature databases (PubMed, EBSCO, Scopus, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid, and ProQuest) were searched from inception to 20 January 2022. The researchers examined randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the impact of exercise on the cognitive performance of older T2DM patients. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs was used to assess each study. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations) approach. The mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Modified MMSE (3MSE), and Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) were used to evaluate the cognitive outcomes. We performed a subgroup analysis with stratification according to exercise intervention modality, duration, and cognitive impairment. Results Five trials were eligible, with a total of 738 T2DM patients. The combined findings revealed that exercise improved global cognitive function significantly (standardized mean difference: 1.34, 95% confidence interval: 0.23–2.44, p < 0.01). The effect of exercise on global cognitive performance was not significantly influenced by intervention modality, intervention duration, or cognitive impairment in the sub-group analysis ( p > 0.05). In the studies that were included, no relevant adverse events were reported. Conclusion Exercise is beneficial in improving global cognitive function in older adults with T2DM. Studies with bigger sample sizes and higher quality are additionally expected to draw more definite conclusions. Systematic Review Registration [ https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails ], identifier [CRD42022296049].
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".