MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Associations of Multidomain Interventions With Improvements in Cognition in Mild Cognitive Impairment

2022· review· en· W4225318398 on OpenAlexafffund
Talia Salzman, Yanina Sarquis‐Adamson, Surim Son, Manuel Montero‐Odasso, Sarah Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityParkwood InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissement
KeywordsCognitive impairmentCognitionPsychological interventionPsychologyCognitive psychologyNeurosciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have the highest risk of progressing to dementia. Evidence suggests that nonpharmacological, single-domain interventions can prevent or delay progressive declines, but it is unclear whether greater cognitive benefits arise from multidomain interventions. Objective: To determine whether multidomain interventions, composed of 2 or more interventions, are associated with greater improvements in cognition among older adults with MCI than a single intervention on its own. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, AgeLine, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from database inception to December 20, 2021. Study Selection: Included studies contained (1) an MCI diagnosis; (2) nonpharmacological, multidomain interventions that were compared with a single active control; (3) older adults aged 65 years and older; and (4) randomized clinical trials. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were screened and extracted by 3 independent reviewers. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate effect sizes from the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postintervention cognitive test scores in 7 cognitive domains were compared between single-domain and multidomain groups. Exposure to the intervention was analyzed. Results: A total of 28 studies published between 2011 and 2021, including 2711 older adults with MCI, reported greater effect sizes in the multidomain group for global cognition (SMD, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.59; P < .001), executive function (SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-0.36; P = .01), memory (SMD, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.45; P < .001), and verbal fluency (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.49; P = .001). The Mini-Mental State Examination (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.64; P < .001), category verbal fluency test (SMD, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.56; P = .002), Trail Making Test-B (SMD, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.13-0.80; P = .007), and Wechsler Memory Scale-Logical Memory I (SMD, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.15-0.80; P < .001) and II (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07-0.45; P < .001) favored the multidomain group. Exposure to the intervention varied between studies: the mean (SD) duration was 71.3 (36.0) minutes for 19.8 (14.6) weeks with sessions taking place 2.5 (1.1) times per week, and all interventions lasted less than 1 year. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, short-term multidomain interventions (<1 year) were associated with improvements in global cognition, executive function, memory, and verbal fluency compared with single interventions in older adults with MCI.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations116
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207