Physical exercise on cortical brain activity in patients with mild cognitive impairment: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical exercise is recognized as a potential strategy to mitigate the cognitive decline associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). This systematic review aims to examine the specific effects of physical exercise on cortical brain activity in patients with MCI, an area that has not been thoroughly explored. METHODS: We conducted a search across 9 electronic databases for randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of physical exercise on the cortical activity of patients with MCI. The search covered the period from database inception to September 2023. Literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessments were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.3, and publication bias was evaluated using STATA 17.0. This study primarily assessed P300 latency and amplitude, alongside cognitive evaluations using the mini-mental state examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment. RESULTS: Six high-quality randomized controlled trials, involving a total of 360 participants, were included. Compared to the control group, significant enhancements were observed in the amplitude of central midline electrode (mean difference [MD] = 1.64 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-2.36]; P < .00001), frontal midline electrode (MD = 2.70 [95% CI, 2.02-3.38]; P < .00001), and parietal midline electrode (MD = 2.42 [95% CI, 0.44-4.41]; P = .02). Latency periods of the central midline electrode (MD = -32.40 [95% CI, -40.27 to -24.54]; P < .00001), frontal midline electrode (MD = -12.57 [95% CI, -30.83 to 5.69]; P = .18), and parietal midline electrode (MD = -12.57 [95% CI, -30.83 to 5.69]; P = .81) were also notably influenced. Moreover, overarching cognitive functions as measured by mini-mental state examination (MD = 1.02 [95% CI, 0.61-1.43]; P < .00001) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MD = 1.39 [95% CI, 0.67-2.12]; P = .0002) exhibited marked improvement. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that physical exercise can augment the P300 amplitude, reduce the P300 latency period, and, overall, enhance cognitive functionality in individuals with MCI.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".