Effects of non-invasive brain stimulation combined with cognitive training on cognitive functions in older people with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has emerged as a potential adjunct to cognitive training for enhancing cognitive performance in older peoples with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of combined NIBS and cognitive training on cognitive function in this population. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EBSCOhost, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science up to May 2025. The review followed PRISMA guidelines, and methodological quality was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (RoB 2) tool for risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for the certainty of evidence. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024563219). Studies were included if they assessed the effects of NIBS in combination with cognitive training on cognitive outcomes in older peoples with MCI. Results A total of 1,689 records were screened, and 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated a moderate positive effect of the combined intervention on attention and processing speed as measured by the Trail-Making Test Part A (TMT-A; effect size = 0.54). Improvements were also observed in global cognition as assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), though the results were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). No significant effects were found for the Trail-Making Test Part B (TMT-B), with effect sizes ranging from 0.05 to 0.52. Conclusion The combination of NIBS and cognitive training appears to yield beneficial effects on specific cognitive domains, particularly attention and processing speed, in older people with MCI. These findings support the potential role of NIBS as an adjunctive intervention to cognitive training for enhancing cognitive function in this population. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these effects. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024563219 , identifier (CRD42024563219).
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".