TECHNOLOGY AND GROUP EXERCISE INTERVENTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA OR MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT: A SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We conducted a scoping review to analyze evidence about online group-based exercise programs. We searched six electronic databases and conducted team analysis with patient and family partners. Of 1,166 screened articles, the final review included 8 publications. Results identified three types of technology-based group exercise interventions for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI): (a) exergames, (b) virtual cycling, and (c) video-conferencing platforms. These studies used psychosocial, physical function, biomarker, and cognitive outcome measures. The review identified three key impacts: (a) feasibility and accessibility; (b) physical, psychosocial, and cognitive benefits; and (c) adaptations necessary for persons with dementia or MCI. Over all, technology-based group exercise interventions were found to be accessible, feasible, and acceptable to persons with dementia or MCI. However, a “one-size-fits-all” game approach often did not work, suggesting that exercise interventions should be adaptable to meet the various needs of individual participants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".