The Effects of Cognitive Interventions in Individuals With Chronic Respiratory Diseases: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effects of cognitive interventions on cognitive function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), self-management, physical activity, physical function, and psychosocial outcomes among individuals with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). Method: The methods adhered to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions for data analysis and synthesis guidelines. Additionally, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for the reporting of data. Database searches were conducted from inception to May 2023 across Medline, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL. Included studies evaluated the effects of cognitive training, cognitive behavioural therapy, and transcranial brain stimulation in adults with CRDs. Studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Five eligible studies with 347 participants were included and showed very low-quality evidence of inconsistent improvements in cognition and no difference between groups for HRQoL and self-management; low evidence for no difference between groups in physical function; moderate evidence for no difference between groups in physical activity and psychosocial outcomes. Conclusions: The effects of cognitive interventions on cognitive function in people with CRDs are inconclusive.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".