MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383059050 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067293

Effects of different aerobic exercises on the global cognitive function of the elderly with mild cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4383059050 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Conglin Han, Weishuang Sun, Dan Zhang, Xiaoshuang Xi, Rong Zhang, Weijun Gong

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineAerobic exerciseMeta-analysisMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCochrane LibraryPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialCognitionMEDLINEInternal medicineCognitive impairmentPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the effects of various types of aerobic exercise on the global cognitive function of the elderly with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). DESIGN: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for clinical RCTs from the earliest available records to March 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included RCTs of subjects older than 60 years with MCI. The outcome indicators of cognitive function of interest were the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager V.5.3 software. Random-effect models were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1680 patients who participated in 20 RCTs were included in this study. Based on outcomes of MMSE analysis, the aerobic exercise, which was beneficial for global cognitive function in MCI patients, included multicomponent aerobic exercise (MD=1.79, 95% CI (1.41 to 2.17), p<0.01) and mind-body exercise (MD=1.28, 95% CI (0.83 to 1.74), p<0.01). The results of the meta-analysis of conventional aerobic exercise (MD=0.51, 95% CI (0.09 to 0.93), p=0.02) turned out to be statistically insignificant after sensitivity analysis (MD=0.14, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.75), p=0.65). With the evaluation of MoCA, multicomponent aerobic exercise (MD=5.74, 95% CI (5.02 to 6.46), p<0.01), mind-body exercise (MD=1.29, 95% CI (0.67 to 1.90), p<0.01) and conventional aerobic exercise (MD=2.06, 95% CI (1.46 to 2.65), p<0.01) were showed significant beneficial effects for the patient. However, there was a high degree of heterogeneity between the results of multicomponent aerobic exercise (MMSE) and conventional aerobic exercise (MoCA), which was analysed and explored. CONCLUSIONS: In general, multicomponent aerobic exercise and mind-body exercise were beneficial in improving global cognitive function in the elderly with MCI. Nevertheless, the improvement effect of mind-body exercise is more reliable compared with multicomponent aerobic exercise and conventional aerobic exercise. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022327386.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.073
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207