Physical and Cognitive Effects of High-Intensity Interval or Circuit-Based Strength Training for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many older adults do not achieve recommended amounts of aerobic or strengthening exercise and high-intensity interval or circuit-based strengthening may offer a time-efficient solution. This review sought to determine the effects of high-intensity interval/circuit strengthening on physical and cognitive functioning for community-dwelling older adults, and its associated adherence, retention, and adverse events. Six databases were searched to June 2022 and 15 studies (11 for effectiveness) were included. The current certainty of evidence is low to very low; upper body-focused physical functioning measures demonstrated small to large benefits and lower body-focused, self-report, and cardiovascular measures had mixed results. There was insufficient evidence (one study) to determine cognitive effects. The mean adherence rates ranged from 73.5% to 95.8%, overall retention across all studies (n = 812) was 86%, and no serious adverse events were reported, suggesting that this type of exercise is feasible for community-dwelling older adults.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".