Effect of Physical Exercise on Cognitive Function of Alzheimer's Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review aims to systematically review the effects of physical exercise on the cognitive performance of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its mechanisms of action. Databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until December 2021. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effect of an exercise intervention (compared with no exercise) on patients with AD. The measures included cognitive function [Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Alzheimer's Disease assessment scale-cognitive (ADAS-Cog), Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA) and Executive Function (EF)]. The methodological quality of the included literature was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Twenty-two studies ( n = 1647, mean age: 77.1 ± 6.3 years) were included in the systematic review, sixteen of which were included in the meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that physical exercise positively affects cognitive performance in older patients with AD. However, the positive effects of the intervention should be interpreted with caution considering the differences in methodological quality, type, frequency, and duration of exercise in the included studies. Future studies should consider the design rigor and specification of RCT protocols.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.035 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".