Impact of dance interventions on the symptoms of dementia: A mixed-methods systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This mixed-methods systematic review determined the impact of dance interventions on symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) among persons living in residential care. METHODS: Seven databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Ageline, and AMED) were searched. Studies published before June 2022 that investigated the impact of dance interventions on symptoms of ADRD were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using CASP, ROBINS-I, and ROB-2. Quantitative and qualitative objectives provided a convergent segregate narrative synthesis for the review. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021220535). RESULTS: Two quantitative and two qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Dance interventions decreased levels of agitation and aggression, and improved behavioural and psychological symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Studies suggest that dance interventions reduce the symptoms of dementia through increased expression, emotions, and improved relationships for persons with ADRD. However, the small number of included studies limits these conclusions.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it