Understanding the impact related to lifestyle interventions for people with dementia: A systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence to suggest that lifestyle initiatives promote brain health and reduce dementia risk. However, there is comparatively limited research focused on lifestyle interventions among people living with dementia. Most recent systematic reviews of lifestyle interventions among people living with dementia centre on the impact of exercise on cognition; yet, functional abilities and quality of life are most consistently prioritized by people living with dementia, care partners, and healthcare professionals. There is insufficient evidence to inform guidelines on effective lifestyle interventions, programs, resources, and policies for people living with dementia. To address this knowledge gap, the objective of this study is to perform a systematic review to understand the impact of lifestyle interventions among people living with dementia. The specific research questions are: "What is the effectiveness of physical activity interventions on improving functional abilities and quality of life among community-dwelling people living with dementia?", "What is the effectiveness of healthy eating/nutrition on improving nutritional status or quality of life among community-dwelling people living with dementia?" and "Does the effectiveness of interventions vary depending on the components (single or multi), setting (in-home or community centre, geography), program structure, mode of delivery, dosage, and participant characteristics (sex/gender, ethno-cultural or language group, race, dementia type)?" The results from this review will inform recommendations of lifestyle interventions and their delivery among people living with dementia in the community. Trial registration: Systematic review registration PROSPERO #CRD42024509408.
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 | 0.055 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.009 |
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".