The state of the art exercise recommendations for older adults with cognitive impairments: A meta‐analysis of the meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is accumulative evidence supporting the benefits of regular physical activity in improving cognition in older adults with cognitive impairments (OAwCIs). In the past decades, multiple meta‐analyses (MA) have been published, adding to the body of literature. However, there is limited information on the overall quality and synthesized results of these studies. Thus, initiating an umbrella review, our review synthesis team appraised the evidence generated from the meta‐analysis reviews that included randomized exercise trials for OAwCIs. Method Upon completing the Prospero registration (ID:109720), we followed the PRISMA guidelines for reviews and performed a literature search up to January 1, 2022 to identify all published meta‐analyses which used randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Once all potential studies were identified, three reviewers screened and reviewed studies to identify included studies, three reviewers collected and validated the data, and two reviewers assess risk of bias using the AMSTAR 2. After applying the study’s a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria, we quantitatively analyzed the effects of exercise on cognitive performance in OAwCIs. Result Over 2000 studies were screened for inclusion, 21 MA studies met our inclusion criteria. Based on the AMSTAR 2, three studies were high quality, nine studies were moderate quality, and nine studies were low quality. The included MA evaluated 280 RCTs, which included 22,315 participants over the age of 65 years old diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), dementia, or Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Combined exercise training paradigms averaged 188.48±40.72 minutes per week and lasted for 18.49±4.53 weeks. Exercise training significantly improved global cognitive function, with an effect size of 0.55 (95% CI = 0.36‐0.73) Conclusion Sustained and prolonged exercise training (cardio endurance type) might provide an attractive and effective intervention for individuals with MCI and AD. This comprehensive umbrella review of meta‐analyses offers valuable and strong evidence‐based exercise recommendations for OAwCIs.
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 | 0.044 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.067 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".