Physical activity and exercise for the prevention and management of mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a collaborative international guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity and exercise have been suggested as effective interventions for the prevention and management of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, but there are no international guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To create a set of evidence- and expert consensus-based prevention and management recommendations regarding physical activity (any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure) and exercise (a subset of physical activity that is planned, structured, repetitive), applicable to a range of individuals from healthy older adults to those with MCI/dementia. METHODS: Guideline content was developed with input from several scientific and lay representatives' societies. A systematic search across multidisciplinary databases was carried out until October 2021. Recommendations for prevention and management were developed according to the GRADE and complemented by consensus statements from the expert panels. RECOMMENDATIONS: Physical activity may be considered for the primary prevention of dementia. In people with MCI there is continued uncertainty about the role of physical activity in slowing the conversion to dementia. Mind-body interventions have the greatest supporting evidence. In people with moderate dementia, exercise may be used for maintaining disability and cognition. All these recommendations were based on a very low/low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Although the scientific evidence on the beneficial role of physical activity and exercise in preserving cognitive functions in subjects with normal cognition, MCI or dementia is inconclusive, this panel, composed of scientific societies and other stakeholders, recommends their implementation based on their beneficial effects on almost all facets of health.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".