Effects of yoga on people with Cognitive Dysfunction: a systematic review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review question / Objective: The population in this study is of patients with mild cognitive impairment; Intervention on yoga; Comparison of types of exercise, physical activity or health preaching, waiting list, etc; The outcome is an efficacy study that includes cognitive function, mental status, living ability, and so on; The study design is a randomized controlled trial.The aim of this study is to examine the status of differences in the efficacy of Yoga interventions in patients with mild cognitive impairment compared to non-Yoga interventions in patients with mild cognitive impairment and to clarify the effects of different yoga exercise regimens in patients with mild cognitive impairment through subgroup analyses.The study methods chosen were randomized controlled trials.Eligibility criteria: Patients with Cognitive Dysfunction who meet screening results on the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scales, or (diagnosed by clinicians and using any accepted diagnostic criteria) will be included.INPLASY registration number: This protocol was registered with the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) on 26 April 2023 and was last u p d a t e d o n 2 6 A p r i l 2 0 2 3 ( r e g i s t r a t i o n n u m b e r INPLASY202340091).
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".