Cognitive Interventions in Individuals With Chronic Respiratory Diseases: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) may cause reduced oxygen availability to organs and body tissues, leading to an increased risk for ischemic damage, which can result in brain tissue injury. This damage can lead to a myriad of neurological symptoms contributing to cognitive decline. Cognitive interventions may attenuate cognitive deficits in people with CRDs; however, the effects have not yet been systematically summarized in the literature. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effects of cognitive interventions (including cognitive behavioral therapy and transcranial brain stimulation) on cognitive function (primary outcome), HRQL, self-management, symptoms, physical activity, physical function, ability to complete activities of daily living (ADLs), hospital admissions, functional capacity, functional performance, psychological and social outcomes, exacerbations, healthcare utilization, and survival in individuals with CRDs. METHODS: This review will be conducted in accordance with the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions and reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Searches will be performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL. Articles will be included if they focus on the effects of cognitive interventions on adults with CRDs, are published in peer-reviewed journals, and are written in English, French, or Portuguese. Risk of bias will be evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool for nonrandomized studies. Meta-analyses will be performed if at least 2 studies provided sufficient data for a specific outcome. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) assessment will be used to evaluate the overall quality of the evidence. RESULTS: This systematic review was initiated in November 2022 and registered with PROSPERO in February 2023, prior to title and abstract screening. Full-text screening of articles will be completed in June 2023. Data extraction and drafting of the manuscript will occur from July 2023 to August 2023, with expected publication in February 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will summarize the effects of cognitive interventions on cognitive function in people with CRDs. It will guide health care professionals in selecting evidence-based strategies to enhance cognitive well-being and overall health outcomes for individuals with CRDs. Additionally, it will identify research gaps and highlight areas for future exploration, supporting researchers in advancing knowledge in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023396234; https://tinyurl.com/mwjrfbxv. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/48235.
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 | 0.062 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.009 |
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".