The Effects of Exercise for Cognitive Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical exercise can slow down the decline of the cognitive function of the older adults, yet the review evidence is not conclusive. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of aerobic and resistance training on cognitive ability. METHODS: A computerized literature search was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase SCOPUS, Web of Science, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang, and VIP database to identify relevant articles from inception through to 1 October 2022. Based on a preliminary search of the database and the references cited, 10,338 records were identified. For the measured values of the research results, the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to synthesize the effect size. RESULTS: Finally, 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Since the outcome indicators of each literature are different in evaluating the old cognitive ability, a subgroup analysis was performed on the included literature. The study of results suggests that aerobic or resistance training interventions significantly improved cognitive ability in older adults compared with control interventions with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MD 2.76; 95% CI 2.52 to 3.00), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MD 2.64; 95% CI 2.33 to 2.94), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (MD 2.86; 95% CI 2.25 to 3.47), the Wechsler Memory Scale (MD 9.33; 95% CI 7.12 to 11.54), the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (MD 5.31; 95% CI 1.20 to 9.43), the Trail Making Tests (MD -8.94; 95% CI -9.81 to -8.07), and the Stroop Color and Word Test (MD -5.20; 95% CI -7.89 to -2.51). CONCLUSION: Physical exercise improved the cognitive function of the older adults in all mental states. To improve cognitive ability, this meta-analysis recommended that patients perform at least moderate-intensity aerobic exercise and resistance exercise on as many days as possible in the week to comply with current exercise guidelines while providing evidence for clinicians.
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 | 0.058 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".