The Effect of Aerobic Exercise on Cognitive Function in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diabetes, a chronic disease metabolic disorder, commonly affects people. It is well-documented that aerobic exercise significantly reduces blood glucose in diabetic conditions. This study aimed to demonstrate the role of aerobic exercise on T2DM patients and cognitive impairment. Methods: We selected studies that published random controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of aerobic exercise on cognitive function in patients with T2DM. However, the animal trials were we excluded in this study. We retrieved the data of random controlled trials from 8 databases based on the influences of aerobic exercise on cognitive function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We utilized RevMan 5.3 software to analyze the data after evaluating the literature. Results: We selected 685 studies based on the information in the abstract and title after deleting the duplicate references. Then, we investigated the full text of 15. After full-text evaluation,we selected 10 random controlled trials to perform this comprehensive meta-analysis. We found that 10 studies derived the information of cognitive function between the test and the control groups and the cognitive function is significantly higher in the experimental group (SMD: 1.88; 95% Cl: 0.91,2.84; P < .01) than the control group. Moreover, the experimental group showed significantly higher minimum mental state examination (MMSE) (SMD: 2.06; 95% Cl: 0.96,3.14; P < .01) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (SMD:1.62; 95% Cl: 0.54, 2.69; P < .01) than the normal group. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrated that aerobic exercise is crucially potent in T2DM patients and cognitive impairment, as evidenced by total cognitive function, MMSE, and MoCA. The above results should be warranted to verify with sophisticated clinical trials. In the future, aerobic exercise is suggested to guide patients'srecovery.
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".