Effects of Intermittent Hypoxia Protocols on Cognitive Performance and Brain Health in Older Adults Across Cognitive States: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The rise in the aging population highlights the need to address cognitive decline and neurodegenerative diseases. Intermittent hypoxia (IH) protocols show promise in enhancing cognitive abilities and brain health. Objective: This review evaluates IH protocols' benefits on cognition and brain health in older adults, regardless of cognitive status. Methods: A systematic search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted across four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and two registers, covering records from inception to May 2024 (PROSPERO: CRD42023462177). Inclusion criteria were: 1) original research with quantitative details; 2) studies involving older adults, with or without cognitive impairment; 3) studies including IH protocols; 4) articles analyzing cognition and brain health in older adults. Results: Seven studies and five registered trials met the criteria. Findings indicate that Intermittent Hypoxia Training (IHT) and Intermittent Hypoxia-Hyperoxia Training (IHHT) improved cognitive functions and brain health. Intermittent Hypoxic Exposure (IHE) improved cerebral tissue oxygen saturation, middle cerebral arterial flow velocity, and cerebral vascular conductance, particularly in cognitively impaired populations. IHT and IHHT had no significant effect on BDNF levels. There is a lack of studies on IHHE in older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Conclusions: IH protocols may benefit cognition regardless of cognitive status. IHT and IHE positively affect cerebral outcomes, with all protocols having limited effects on BDNF levels. Future research should standardize IH protocols, investigate long-term cognitive effects, and explore neuroprotective biomarkers. Combining these protocols with physical exercise across diverse populations could refine interventions and guide targeted therapeutic strategies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".