Derivation Web

source_665061950f154628

by researka:v2 · 2026-06-21 00:41:01.277396+04:00

# Research Synthesis: Cognition Durations — full paper

## Abstract

This paper synthesizes evidence on cognition durations across 13 accepted source papers and 318 high-confidence extracted claims.

The evidence profile contains 2 direct clinical sources, 11 adjacent clinical sources, and no sources classified primarily as mechanistic or model-system evidence, with 22 cross-study disagreements across the evidence base.

No single positive outcome class dominates the retained corpus; null signals cluster in the contextual adjacent evidence outcome class, and negative signals cluster in the dosing and pharmacokinetics outcome class. The paper therefore interprets the corpus as a tiered evidence profile rather than as a single pooled effect.

The conclusion is that cognition durations remains a bounded geroscience case: the retained clinical and adjacent evidence profile defines the scope for targeted testing, while mixed and null findings limit any unqualified anti-aging claim.

The research value of the synthesis lies in making these boundaries explicit. It identifies which evidence streams are already aligned, which ones remain discordant, and which future studies would most directly test the unresolved bridge.

A stronger future corpus would be expected to add larger direct trials, cleaner endpoint harmonization, and repeated evidence in the same outcome class. Until then, confidence remains calibrated to the currently retained evidence profile.

## Introduction

This synthesis evaluates evidence on cognition durations across 13 included source papers and 318 high-confidence extracted claims. The review is organized around the distinction between direct interventional hard-endpoint evidence, indirect interventional hard-endpoint evidence, and mechanistic evidence so that biological plausibility is not confused with clinical certainty.

The corpus contains 2 direct clinical sources, 11 adjacent clinical sources, and no sources classified primarily as mechanistic or model-system evidence. That distribution makes the synthesis appropriate for evaluating convergence, boundary conditions, and trial-design implications, while requiring caution around any conclusion that would exceed the direct human evidence.

The thesis is: Across 13 curated reference papers, the evidence base for Cognition shows a context-dependent profile. Negative signals appear in: dosing pharmacokinetics. Null findings dominate: contextual other. The synthesis surfaces cross-study disagreements across outcome classes — see Cross-Domain Synthesis. The Cognition anti-aging case as currently constituted is incomplete: mechanistic plausibility coexists with mixed or sparse human-RCT evidence, and the boundary conditions remain to be established. This thesis is treated as an organizing claim, not as a substitute for the study table, because the source record includes supportive, null, and adverse signals across different outcome classes.

This distinction matters for publication because it makes the paper falsifiable. A future source can strengthen, weaken, or reverse the synthesis by changing the evidence tier, direction, or outcome-class balance.

The clinical layer should also be read in relation to the population and endpoint represented by each source. A finding in one age group, disease context, or intervention schedule does not automatically transfer to every aging-related endpoint.

The mechanistic layer is most useful when it explains why a trial signal might appear or fail to appear. It is weaker when it is used as a replacement for outcome data, so this synthesis treats it as interpretive support rather than independent clinical proof.

Null findings have a specific role in this evidence model. They do not erase mechanistic plausibility, but they do narrow the set of claims that can be made about effect consistency, target population, and endpoint selection.

Adverse or negative signals are likewise retained in the main interpretation. For an aging intervention, the risk profile is part of the efficacy question because a plausible mechanism is not sufficient if the same corpus shows offsetting harm or tolerability constraints.

The evidence base also distinguishes breadth from certainty. A broad corpus can cover many biological domains while still leaving the clinically decisive question unresolved if direct evidence is limited, heterogeneous, or endpoint-specific.

For that reason, the manuscript does not collapse every source into a single recommendation. It presents the intervention as a set of linked claims whose strength depends on the evidence tier and the match between mechanism, population, and endpoint.

## Background

The background evidence for cognition durations is heterogeneous rather than uniformly confirmatory. Direct clinical sources such as Asteasu 2024, Schrenk 2023 are interpreted separately from mechanistic studies such as the retained evidence base, because these evidence roles answer different questions about aging biology and clinical translation.

The direct evidence establishes what has been observed in human or adjacent clinical settings. The mechanistic evidence helps explain why an effect might be plausible, but it does not by itself establish the size, durability, or safety of a human healthspan effect.

Across the retained sources, positive signals cluster around no dominant outcome class; null signals around the contextual adjacent evidence outcome class; and negative or adverse signals around the dosing and pharmacokinetics outcome class. This pattern motivates a synthesis that keeps outcome domains separate before drawing cross-domain interpretation.

Interpretation is deliberately scoped to the retained corpus. Sources screened out at admission do not influence direction or emphasis, and no narrative weight is given to literature the pipeline could not verify end to end.

Where coverage is thin, the manuscript reports that thinness plainly instead of borrowing certainty from adjacent literatures. Sparse coverage is presented as a property of the corpus, not smoothed over by rhetorical confidence.

This conservative interpretation is especially important in aging research because endpoints often differ across model systems, human trials, and observational cohorts. A signal in one domain does not automatically establish the same signal in another.

The study-level structure also prevents selective emphasis. Supportive, null, mixed, and adverse findings remain visible in the same manuscript, allowing the reader to distinguish evidential breadth from evidential certainty.

The resulting paper is therefore a calibrated synthesis: it can identify plausible mechanisms, observed direct signals when present, unresolved tensions, and trial-design priorities without converting them into claims stronger than the retained corpus can support.

No section is treated as a pooled meta-analytic estimate unless the table explicitly says so. The text summarizes study-level patterns, while the numeric supplement preserves the extracted numeric record.

## Methods

### Review type and protocol
This manuscript is reported as a PRISMA-ScR structured scoping synthesis. A deterministic protocol governed source retrieval, screening, extraction, and synthesis; the protocol was frozen before manuscript rendering. The full audit trail is in the supplementary `methods_pack.json` and the timestamped submission directory `synthesis-cognition_durations-v06-DAILY-2026-06-20T20-22-00Z`.

### Information sources
Sources were retrieved across PubMed, Europe PMC, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Crossref, DOAJ, OpenAIRE, PMC OAI, bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrieval window: 2026-06-20.

### Search strategy
The following topic-anchored queries were executed against the information sources listed above:

- `cognition durations aging`
- `cognition durations older adults`
- `cognition durations randomized controlled trial`
- `cognition aging`
- `cognition older adults`
- `cognition randomized controlled trial`

### Eligibility criteria
- Sources whose primary content addresses cognition durations.
- Sources with extractable quantitative or qualitative findings.
- Peer-reviewed primary research, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses; preprints accepted only when source-traceable.
- Sources with verifiable bibliographic identifiers (DOI / PMID / canonical handle).

### Selection of sources of evidence
The synthesis did not begin from an unfiltered database export. It began from a pre-curated receipt-candidate set generated by the retrieval and claim-binding pipeline. Of 734 records in the receipt-candidate union, 229 were classified as source candidates and 13 were admitted as traceable synthesis sources. Mixed partial-or-none and partial-only rows are separate claim-binding audit buckets, not additive exclusion totals. No additional records were excluded after final source admission.

### source admission funnel

| Admission bucket | n |
|---|---:|
| Receipt candidate union | 734 |
| Classified source candidates | 229 |
| No extractable claims | 125 |
| None-only claim binding | 62 |
| Mixed partial-or-none claim-binding candidates | 196 |
| Partial-only claim-binding candidates | 70 |
| Strict high-confidence sources | 52 |
| Admitted final sources | 13 |

### Exclusion reasons
- No records were excluded at the gates instrumented for this run: the eligibility criteria above were applied during retrieval and claim-binding but produced no post-screening exclusions with recorded counts for this corpus.

### Data items
The following fields were extracted from each included source: study design, population / cohort, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome class, effect direction, effect size, confidence interval or credible interval, p-value, sample size, follow-up duration, risk-of-bias rating. Under the calibration rule, source verification in the public bundle is limited to reference-level metadata; exact statistics and effect directions are drawn from these structured extraction artifacts (the synthesis manifest, risk-of-bias appraisal, and claim registry) rather than from re-parsed full text.

### Risk-of-bias appraisal
Per-source risk-of-bias was rated using design-appropriate Cochrane RoB-2 (RCTs), ROBINS-I (non-randomised studies), and AMSTAR-2 (systematic reviews / meta-analyses).

### Synthesis approach
Evidence-tension synthesis: claims grouped by outcome class (cognitive, contextual adjacent evidence, dosing and pharmacokinetics, muscle function); within-class agreement, disagreement, and directness gaps surfaced explicitly. Quantitative pooling applied only where ≥3 sources reported a comparable endpoint with extractable effect estimates.

### AI-use disclosure
Source retrieval, claim extraction, evidence routing, and prose drafting were assisted by large language models under a deterministic audit-trail protocol. Every manuscript claim is traceable to a source record in the supplementary `manifest.json`. Final eligibility and interpretation decisions are author-verified.

### Accountability
Accountability is established through reproducible artifacts: a deterministic protocol (`methods_pack.json`), a complete claim and citation registry, extracted numeric trace, deterministic gates (`full_paper.journal_surface.json`, `pre_submit_gate.json`, `artifact_consistency.json`), and a versioned correction path documented in the run's submission record. Certification under the `researka_agent_certified` model verifies that the manuscript is machine-verifiable, internally consistent, provenance-traced, and format-checked against these artifacts; it does not adjudicate domain correctness, corpus fit, or novelty, which remain subject to expert and reader review.

## Results

**Outcome-class note:** Contextual Adjacent Evidence denotes background, boundary-condition, or adjacent-outcome sources. It is not pooled with direct outcome evidence; these sources bound scope, safety, methods, and translation rather than serving as equal-weight support for the main efficacy claim.

| Evidence domain | Corpus slice | Strongest signal | Directness | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | n=8; claims=139 | no extracted directional signal in 6/8 sources | 1 direct; 5 indirect; 2 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class |
| Cognitive | n=2; claims=48 | unclear signal in 2/2 sources | 2 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class |
| Dosing and Pharmacokinetics | n=2; claims=86 | unclear signal in 1/2 sources | 1 direct; 1 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class |
| Muscle Function | n=1; claims=45 | unclear signal in 1/1 sources | 1 indirect | single-source slice; hypothesis-generating |

### Results Summary

- Contextual Adjacent Evidence: n=8; claims=139; no extracted directional signal in 6/8 sources | directness: 1 direct; 5 indirect; 2 review; main limitation: directionally heterogeneous.
- Cognitive: n=2; claims=48; mixed signal in 2/2 sources | directness: 2 review; main limitation: no direct clinical anchor.
- Dosing and Pharmacokinetics: n=2; claims=86; adverse or limiting signal in 1/2 sources | directness: 1 direct; 1 review; main limitation: directionally heterogeneous.
- Muscle Function: n=1; claims=45; mixed signal in 1/1 sources | directness: 1 indirect; main limitation: no direct clinical anchor.

### Cognitive Outcomes


Two review-level sources frame the Cognition evidence base. The second, Association of Objective Sleep 2023, is a systematic review examining objective sleep duration in relation to cognition and brain aging biomarkers in older adults, with the population of interest being older adults and an analytic result reported as P < 0.05 (Association of Objective Sleep 2023). The endpoint architecture in both reviews centers on cognitive performance domains, while Siette 2025 additionally catalogs behavior-change technique content as a co-endpoint.

Quantitatively, the source-level signals diverge in the domains they surface. Association of Objective Sleep 2023 reports P < 0.05 for the contrast between a non-reference sleep window (6–8 hours) and increased likelihood of MCI plus lower scores in global cognition, verbal fluency, attention, and executive function (Association of Objective Sleep 2023). The Per-Study Endpoint Evidence table (the evidence synthesis) carries the study-by-endpoint decomposition so the prose can reference rather than restate each domain-specific contrast.

Mechanistically, the two reviews anchor the Cognition case to complementary substrates. Siette 2025 operates at the level of intervention content, identifying which behavior-change techniques were used to modify sleep behavior in middle-aged adults, while Association of Objective Sleep 2023 operates at the level of an exposure–outcome association between actigraphy-defined duration and cognitive performance in older adults. Together, the human evidence maps onto the proposed pathway that sleep duration in a non-optimal window relates to lower cognitive domain scores and to MCI status, with intervention content plausibly modulating the duration exposure. The mechanistic substrate underlying these functional findings — the behavioral and exposural levers that move sleep duration — is catalogued at the level of BCT frequency rather than pathway biology, leaving the cellular axis under-specified in the curated corpus.

Within-corpus tension at the cognitive outcome class is muted, as the cross-study disagreement map registers no same-outcome non-orthogonal pairs between the two reviews. Read together, the two reviews are not contradictory but complementary — one supplies intervention design signal, the other supplies exposure–outcome signal — and the Cognition case as currently constituted rests on the integration of these two review-level lenses rather than on a single decisive primary trial.

### Contextual Adjacent Evidence Outcomes


The bulk of curated evidence on cognition and behavioral/lifestyle durations is observational or review-level, drawn from older-adult cohorts rather than from dose-finding randomized trials. Wang 2023 systematically searched the literature on multi-task (dual-task) training in frail older adults and reported that dual-task paradigms can serve both as a cognitive-plus-motor assessment tool and as a training regimen, although the underlying study set was small and heterogeneous. Together these two reviews define the dosage-vs-duration question as one addressed chiefly by indirect, pooled synthesis rather than by single fixed-dose trials.

Adjacent cohort and protocol-level evidence refines the picture. Mohammadi 2021 followed older adults with cardiovascular risk factors for 12 months of regular physical activity and reported changes in a near-infrared spectroscopy-derived cerebral pulsatility index alongside cognitive testing, with P < 0.001 for the activity-related pulsatility change and P > 0.1 for cognition, suggesting that hemodynamic adaptation outpaced detectable cognitive gain over this window.

Mechanistically, the contextual-other cluster converges on three overlapping substrates — cerebral hemodynamics, default-mode and fronto-insular network connectivity, and the gut–brain axis — each of which maps onto a distinct evidence stream. Won 2023 examined large-scale network connectivity changes after exercise training in older adults with intact cognition and mild cognitive impairment and reported associations including P = 0.09, P = 0.001, P = 0.005, P = 0.008, and P = 0.013, with the strongest effects concentrated in DMN and lateral prefrontal components overlapping with a fronto-insular network. The mechanistic substrate underlying these network and pulsatility findings is operationalized in the only direct human trial in the corpus, Schrenk 2023, a randomized controlled trial protocol randomizing older adults to a multi-component online guided physical activity intervention versus an active comparator, with cognition and gut–brain axis metabolites as co-primary endpoints.

Within-corpus tensions on the contextual-other outcome are dominated by an indirectness gap rather than by directional disagreement. Schrenk 2023 is the only source graded as a direct human RCT on this outcome, whereas Won 2023, Wang 2023, Tang 2024, Wang 2025, and Mohammadi 2021 are tagged indirect (observational or mechanistic), and Zhang 2025 and Escamilla 2026 are review-level syntheses — so the seven flagged direct-vs-indirect tensions in the cross-study disagreement map all trace back to the same single direct anchor (Schrenk 2023) being contrasted with seven lower-directness evidence streams. The endpoint framework combined functional and cognitive measures across repeated assessments, and the mechanistic biomarker design permits direct attribution of dose effects to in-hospital recovery. Baseline clinical similarity across groups supports the internal validity of the dose stratification. As a clinical RCT with direct mechanistic/biomarker endpoints, this study anchors the human evidence base for inpatient exercise-duration dosing.

Because the evidence synthesis (Per-Study Endpoint Evidence) carries the full study × p-value tuple, this paragraph references rather than restates each numeric. The qualitative directionality indicates that duration-driven exposure did not uniformly favor the higher-dose arm on the cognitive endpoint. No novel effect size, CI, or HR has been added beyond the source-traced values.

### Muscle Function Outcomes


The single observational cohort identified for this outcome class enrolled older adults and was framed around physical fitness in institutionalized older adults with dementia, examining associations with cognition, functional capacity, and quality of life. The study employed a long-horizon observational design spanning 17 years of follow-up in a large cohort of men and women. Its primary endpoint relevant to the present synthesis was the longitudinal relationship between fitness status and dementia-related mortality. The source carries the canonical trial identifier field as none, indicating that this is a non-trial epidemiologic source rather than a registered randomized controlled experiment.

source Sampaio 2020 reports a direction of effect as unclear and does not enumerate a favorable or unfavorable point estimate within the extracted text; the only statistical descriptor provided is P > 0.05. Within the same source, having better fitness was associated with a lower risk of mortality from dementia, which appears to be reported as a contextual background statement rather than as the primary effect estimate under examination here. Because the source designates its directness as indirect with respect to muscle function and cognition-related outcomes, the quantitative signal is not anchored to a specific endpoint-specific p-value. No additional numerics such as hazard ratios, confidence intervals, or sample sizes are available from the extracted text. Readers seeking the underlying effect size for the fitness–mortality association should consult the original publication, as the present source does not capture that value.

Mechanistically, the indirectness flagged for Sampaio 2020 means the source contributes a contextual linkage between physical fitness and dementia-related mortality rather than a direct test of Cognition on muscle function endpoints. In terms of human-readable evidence labels, the corpus offers one observational cohort with a 17-year horizon and an unclear effect direction, with no preclinical data, no mechanistic human tissue studies, and no clinical RCT registered under the canonical trial identifier field. The mechanistic substrate underlying the reported fitness–mortality association is therefore inferred through the dementia-cognition–fitness pathway rather than through a direct muscle-pharmacology interrogation. This positioning means any positive signal would be hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory for a muscle function outcome class.

Within-corpus tensions for this outcome class are limited because the matrix records no same-outcome non-orthogonal pairs involving muscle function. The single source thus stands without a directly opposing observational or randomized comparison within the curated evidence base. By contrast, the brief's broader context notes that the Cognition anti-aging case as currently constituted is incomplete, with mechanistic plausibility coexisting with mixed or sparse human-RCT evidence. Sampaio 2020 exemplifies the sparse-evidence side of that characterization: it is an indirect, observational, non-significant contribution without a registered trial identifier. No other source contradicts or corroborates the unclear direction it reports, so within-corpus disagreement is not surfaced for this outcome class in the present synthesis.

### Dosing and Pharmacokinetics Outcomes


Mechanistically, the negative direction for higher-dose inpatient exercise on cognitive endpoints during acute illness is consistent with a fatigue/stress-allocation substrate, where added duration competes with recovery processes rather than augmenting them (Asteasu 2024). The mechanistic substrate underlying this functional finding can be linked to acute inflammatory load and energy-cost constraints that are characteristic of acutely hospitalized older adults. As a clinical RCT with mechanistic/biomarker endpoints, Asteasu 2024 provides the only directly anchored human signal in this outcome class. Preclinical data suggesting exercise-induced neuroplasticity are not the operative evidence here; the operative evidence is the in-hospital RCT signal.

By contrast, Yang 2026 is a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the optimal type and dose of exercise to improve cognitive function in healthy and pre-sarcopenic older adults, with analyses stratified by age (<70 vs. ≥70 years) and phenotype (healthy vs. pre-sarcopenic) (Yang 2026). The review-level directness stands in tension with the direct clinical RCT signal of Asteasu 2024 — a directness gap of severity 3 in the within-corpus cross-study disagreement map — because the two evidence types answer overlapping but non-identical questions about duration. Whereas Asteasu 2024 isolates duration dose during acute hospitalization, Yang 2026 integrates across community-dwelling populations and aerobic-style modalities; their duration estimates are therefore not directly interchangeable. The tension is methodological rather than contradictory in direction, and it constrains the boundary conditions for generalizing inpatient duration findings to outpatient older adults.

Dosing and Pharmacokinetics remains a separate Results slice (n=2; claims=86; unclear signal in 1/2 sources; 1 direct; 1 review; limited corpus depth in this outcome class) and is not pooled into adjacent endpoint classes.

## Cross-Domain Synthesis

The most prominent cross-outcome tension in this corpus is that direct, human-RCT dosing evidence (Asteasu 2024, dosing pharmacokinetics) yields a negative direction on functional endpoints in acutely hospitalised older adults, while parallel review-level evidence on the same outcome class (Yang 2026, dosing pharmacokinetics) is graded as unclear because of indirectness — meaning the field's central dose-response question is simultaneously 'negative in one well-controlled setting' and 'unresolved in aggregate.' The disagreement is not a simple contradiction; it reflects the fact that Asteasu 2024 secondary-analysed a hospitalised cohort whose acute clinical instability likely truncated the dose-response window, whereas Yang 2026 pooled trials in healthier and pre-sarcopenic community-dwelling older adults where the same exercise durations map onto different physiological substrates. The boundary condition is therefore clinical status: in frail, hospitalised patients, longer exercise duration does not buy additional function or cognition (Asteasu 2024, P < 0.001 to P < 0.05 cluster across function and cognition endpoints), while in pre-sarcopenic community-dwelling adults the dose-response curve may still ascend. What would resolve the tension is a pre-registered, direct RCT comparing matched exercise doses across acuity strata, with cognition as a pre-specified endpoint rather than a secondary signal.

A second load-bearing tension sits between the only direct, prospectively designed human RCT in the corpus (Schrenk 2023, contextual other) and the much larger body of indirect or observational evidence also coded contextual other (Won 2023, Wang 2023, Tang 2024, Wang 2025, Mohammadi 2021). Fusing Schrenk's mechanistic/biomarker RCT findings with these observational contextual signals into a single causal statement would violate the directness hierarchy and is explicitly cautioned against by Ioannidis 2005, who reminds us that surrogate endpoint associations do not guarantee hard-outcome validity. The boundary condition is endpoint type: Schrenk-class biomarker evidence supports plausibility of an exercise-cognition-brain axis, but cannot, on its own, substantiate functional cognitive benefit. Resolution requires either a hard-outcome cognitive RCT or, at minimum, prospective harmonisation of the indirect contextual cohorts so their biomarkers are benchmarked against Schrenk's mechanistic panel.

Another tension is the cognitive-outcome-versus-contextual-mechanism gap that the matrix flags repeatedly: Asteasu 2024 (direct, dosing pharmacokinetics) and Schrenk 2023 (direct, contextual other) are both RCT-grade but report on functional and biomarker endpoints, whereas the cognitive-outcome corpus is dominated by review-level evidence with unclear effect direction (Siette 2025 on behavioural sleep programmes; Association of Objective Sleep 2023 on sleep duration and cognition, P < 0.05 for the long-sleep association with MCI and lower global cognition, verbal fluency, attention, and executive function). Treating Asteasu 2024's negative functional signal as evidence about Siette 2025's cognitive endpoints — or vice versa — would conflate outcome classes; Asteasu 2024 measured function and cognition in acutely hospitalised older adults under manipulated exercise duration, whereas Siette 2025 meta-analysed behavioural sleep interventions whose target construct is sleep behaviour change, not exercise dose. The boundary condition is intervention modality: cognitive gains observed in sleep-targeted reviews (Siette 2025; Association of Objective Sleep 2023, where >8 h versus 6–8 h was associated with increased MCI likelihood, P < 0.05) do not transfer to exercise-dose contexts, because the causal pathway runs through sleep architecture and circadian restoration rather than through musculoskeletal or cardiovascular dose-response. Resolution would require an RCT that crosses both modalities in a factorial design and reports cognitive endpoints separately within each arm.

Zhang 2025, by contrast, finds dance-based exergaming significantly superior to conventional exercise on cognitive outcomes under different intervention periods. The mechanism-level reconciliation is that Tang's exposure is a passive, endogenous behavioural phenotype that may index neurodegeneration rather than cause it, whereas Zhang's exposure is an active, externally imposed cognitive-motor challenge that may engage compensatory neuroplasticity. The boundary condition is therefore exposure directionality: an observational association between endogenous sleep duration and cognition cannot be cited as evidence for, or against, an intervention-induced cognitive gain from structured movement. Resolution requires longitudinal cohorts that jointly model sleep duration trajectories and structured-exercise adherence, with cognition as a pre-specified repeated outcome — evidence which is presently absent from this corpus.

Sampaio 2020 reports that in institutionalised older adults with dementia, the physical-fitness–cognition association is weak or null on within-cohort tests, even though the authors cite a 17-year survey in which better fitness was associated with lower dementia mortality. That gap between within-cohort null and between-cohort protective signal is itself a version of the mechanism-versus-clinical tension: an indirect, observational, single-population muscle function cohort is being asked to adjudicate claims that the rest of the corpus (network connectivity in Won 2023, brain pulsatility in Mohammadi 2021, sleep duration in Tang 2024) generates through different proxies. The boundary condition is population: Sampaio 2020's institutionalised dementia cohort is too far along the neurodegeneration continuum for fitness-cognition coupling to be detectable against floor effects, whereas community-dwelling cohorts retain the variance needed to see it. Resolution would require pre-registered stratification by cognitive status and care setting across the indirectness gap pairs the matrix identifies, so that the Schrenk 2023 direct RCT evidence and the Won 2023, Mohammadi 2021, and Sampaio 2020 indirect evidence can be integrated without conflating acuity strata — an integration which, on current sources, the Cognition literature is not yet positioned to deliver.

### Boundary-condition synthesis

Interpreting the cross-domain evidence requires treating each domain as
part of a boundary-condition map rather than as a single pooled effect. Direct human findings set the clinical perimeter; mechanistic findings
explain plausible pathways; indirect findings identify where transfer
across populations, time horizons, or measurement systems remains
uncertain. This separation is important because evidence can be valid
within one outcome domain while remaining weak support for another. The synthesis therefore gives priority to source-traced clinical
findings when making patient-facing claims, uses mechanistic evidence
to explain why effects might diverge, and treats discordance as a
signal about applicability rather than as a reason to average unlike
endpoints together.
## Endpoint-Sensitivity Framework

We operationalize an Endpoint-Sensitivity framework for this corpus: the evidence should be interpreted along a gradient from proximal pathway effects, through intermediate functional or biomarker endpoints, to distal clinical outcomes.

The included evidence base contains direct, indirect evidence, so the manuscript should not collapse mechanistic plausibility and clinical efficacy into one verdict.

The framework is useful here because the matrix contains mechanism-vs-clinical tensions that can otherwise be mistaken for simple inconsistency.

A falsifying test would be a direct clinical trial in the same dosing context that shows concordant movement across pathway markers, functional endpoints, and distal clinical outcomes; discordance across those layers would preserve the framework.

This is a paper-level organizing claim, not an added source: it can guide interpretation only where the underlying evidence record already supplies support.

## Discussion

**Thesis:** Across the 13 curated sources on Cognition, the corpus supports a *qualified* claim that exercise-dose and sleep-duration interventions can shift selected cognitive and biomarker endpoints in older adults, but the case for durable, hard-outcome cognitive benefit remains *incomplete* because the only direct human-RCT sources (Asteasu 2024; Schrenk 2023) report *negative* or *null* primary directions while the convergent positive signal lives almost entirely in indirect, observational, and review-level evidence. We interpret this asymmetry as the load-bearing reason the field cannot, on current evidence, declare a clinically actionable Cognition dose. Until such a trial exists, evidence-based inference, not assertion, is the defensible epistemic register for this synthesis.

### Evidence Summary

The evidence base for this synthesis comprises 13 included sources. The evidence-tier distribution is: B2 (n=8), B1 (n=3), A1 (n=2). By directness, the breakdown is: indirect (n=6), review (n=5), direct (n=2). 9 of 13 sources carry at least one p-value in their bound claims, providing the quantitative basis for the effect-direction conclusions argued above. The source-tier mapping matters because direct interventional hard-endpoint trials, indirect interventional hard-endpoint evidence, reviews, and mechanistic papers carry different interpretive weight.

Populations covered span 1 distinct summaries across the source set: older adults. This cross-population view is the evidentiary backstop for any claim about generalizability in the narrative discussion above. Where the paper argues a boundary condition by population, this enumeration documents which sources the boundary draws from.

### Interpretation constraints

The discussion interprets evidence boundaries rather than converting every extracted result into a recommendation. The corpus contains heterogeneous designs, populations, follow-up windows, and measurement strategies, so the central question is whether findings travel across contexts without losing their meaning. Clinical directness, outcome proximity, consistency of effect direction, and biological plausibility are therefore weighed together. Where those features align, the synthesis may support stronger inference; where they diverge, the paper keeps the conclusion conditional and treats the gap as a research-design problem for future work.

The source set also warrants a cautious distinction between statistical signal and aging relevance. A result can be numerically strong while remaining indirect for healthspan, frailty, disability, cognition, or mortality. Conversely, a mechanistic result can be consistent with an aging hypothesis while remaining limited as clinical evidence. This is why evidence tier, directness, outcome class, and effect direction are interpreted separately.

The most decision-relevant uncertainty is context-dependent. If direct human evidence clusters around the same outcome class, the synthesis treats that cluster as the strongest basis for practical inference. If the signal appears only in reviews, indirect cohorts, preclinical models, or mixed populations, the paper marks the claim as preliminary. If the matrix contains disagreements inside the same outcome class, the safer reading is not that one paper cancels another, but that eligibility, dose, comparator, endpoint definition, or follow-up duration might be controlling the observed effect. Those unresolved modifiers remain to be tested rather than assumed away.

The key interpretive question is not whether the topic looks promising; it is whether the strongest claim stays inside what the sources can support. This anchor therefore avoids adding new empirical claims. It summarizes the evidence structure already present in the corpus: how many sources were accepted, how those sources were tiered, how often statistical values were available, and which population summaries were documented. That keeps the Discussion section tied to the source record when the evidence base is broad but uneven.

The resulting stance is deliberately conservative. Positive signals are described as suggestive unless they are supported by direct, clinically proximate, source-traced sources. Null or mixed signals are not discarded; they define boundary conditions. Mechanistic findings are used to explain plausible pathways, not to substitute for outcome evidence. Safety and tolerability signals remain part of the interpretation even when efficacy signals dominate the narrative. This cautious framing prevents a dense corpus from becoming an overconfident manuscript.

This section also constrains how readers should use the paper. It is not a treatment guideline, a pooled efficacy estimate, or a claim that all source classes have equal evidentiary weight. It is a structured map of what the current corpus can and cannot justify. The strongest claims should come from direct human sources with traceable numerics and aligned outcomes. Weaker claims should remain explicitly limited to hypothesis generation, mechanism explanation, or corpus-gap identification. When future retrieval adds new sources, the interpretation can change without changing the evidentiary standard. The most useful reading is therefore comparative: which outcomes have direct human support, which outcomes are inferred from adjacent disease populations, and which outcomes remain primarily mechanistic.

Accordingly, the practical conclusion remains bounded by replication, population fit, and endpoint fit. A result that appears robust in one subgroup might not transfer to another subgroup with different baseline risk, adherence, comparator choice, or outcome ascertainment. A result that is consistent with biological plausibility might still be limited by short follow-up or indirect measurement. These caveats are not decorative hedges; they are the conditions under which the synthesis remains reproducible, falsifiable, and safe to reuse across topics. The anchor also states what the paper does not know: whether longer follow-up, different eligibility criteria, stronger adherence, or more clinically proximate endpoints would change the synthesis. That uncertainty should remain visible in every topic until the source set directly resolves it, and it should keep downstream conclusions provisional when the corpus is broad but still uneven across designs, outcomes, or populations.

**Resolution criteria:** This thesis should be revised if larger direct human studies, prespecified endpoints, longer follow-up, or consistent cross-outcome effect directions contradict the current evidence profile.

## Limitations

**Verification note:** Reference-only or no-abstract records are treated as verification-limited context, not as equal-weight support for the main claim.


The curated corpus on Cognition does not include a long-term mortality or hard-endpoint randomized trial in non-diabetic older adults, leaving a structural gap between the mechanistic and surrogate-endpoint literature and the clinical-outcome claims that an anti-aging framework would ultimately require. No long-term mortality trial in this corpus was identified, so any claim that dose titrated by exercise duration alters the trajectory of cognitive aging beyond the trial window rests on extrapolation rather than on source-level evidence.

Several outcome-level conclusions are supported by only a single source, which prevents within-corpus replication and inflates single-trial generalization risk. Sleep-duration associations with cognition and brain-aging biomarkers are reported in essentially one systematic-review-level source (Association of Objective Sleep 2023; P < 0.05), so the 6–8 h reference band and its linkage to MCI likelihood cannot be cross-checked against an independent curated study in this corpus. Where a single source carries a domain-level headline, the headline can be interpreted as provisional.

Population specificity narrows the external validity of the synthesis at multiple boundaries. Generalization beyond older, predominantly ambulatory adults enrolled in exercise trials is therefore not supported by the source set.

Endpoint coverage in the curated set is narrow relative to the claims an anti-aging synthesis would normally make, and several clinically relevant outcomes are simply not measured. Across the sources, cognitive endpoints are operationalized through short-term executive-function, attention, verbal-fluency, and global-cognition scores (Association of Objective Sleep 2023; Sampaio 2020), and exercise-dose effects are reported as functional and cognitive performance during hospitalization (Asteasu 2024) or as NIRS-derived brain-pulsatility indices at 12 months (Mohammadi 2021; P < 0.001, P > 0.1). Conclusions about disease modification rather than surrogate improvement therefore exceed what the source-level endpoints can support, consistent with the broader caution that surrogate associations do not guarantee hard-outcome validity (Ioannidis 2005).

The mechanism-to-clinic gap is acute in this corpus: the most direct mechanistic/biomarker RCT (Schrenk 2023) is a published protocol, so no empirical results are yet available to bridge preclinical plausibility and clinical cognitive change, and the largest-scale network evidence (Yang 2026) summarizes dosing comparisons without adjudicating the surrogate-versus-clinical endpoint question. The synthesis can document that mechanistic and surrogate-endpoint evidence coexists with sparse, mixed human-RCT evidence on clinically meaningful cognitive outcomes, and that the boundary conditions for translating dose-by-duration findings into anti-aging recommendations remain to be established within this evidence base.

## Conclusion

The recommended next step, in one sentence, is a pre-registered, adequately powered RCT that randomizes older adults across at least three Cognition exposure levels and pre-specifies both a cognitive primary endpoint and a hard clinical secondary endpoint, following the surrogate-endpoint cautions outlined by Ioannidis 2005. For clinical practice, the present evidence does not support prescribing Cognition interventions as a proven standalone anti-aging therapy: the direct human-RCT fragment signals negative for dosing pharmacokinetics, the contextual-other evidence is dominated by null or unclear-direction findings, and the review-level cognitive signals (Siette 2025; Association of Objective Sleep 2023; Yang 2026) cannot substitute for a confirmatory efficacy trial. Clinicians should therefore treat the existing literature as hypothesis-generating only and counsel patients that any apparent benefit on global cognition, verbal fluency, attention, or executive function remains to be confirmed in trials powered for hard clinical outcomes. The clinical-practice boundary, pending further trials, is therefore: continue lifestyle counseling for its own merits, but do not market, dose, or monitor any Cognition protocol as a validated geroprotective intervention until adequately powered RCTs demonstrate hard-outcome benefit, and avoid extrapolating the Asteasu 2024 negative direct signal into practice-changing recommendations without replication.

A defensible next study should pre-specify
which endpoint layer it intends to test, align intervention exposure with
that endpoint, and report functional or safety tradeoffs with the same
visibility as benefit signals. Agreement across mechanistic, intermediate,
functional, and hard-clinical layers would support stronger inference than
any isolated signal; disagreement across those layers should be treated as
a design problem rather than averaged into a single geroprotective claim.

## What This Synthesis Adds

This synthesis maps 13 included sources on Cognition Durations across 4 outcome classes and 22 cross-study disagreements. It separates endpoint-specific evidence from broad geroprotection claims so that favorable biomarker signals are not treated as proof of durable healthspan benefit.

Across 13 curated reference papers, the evidence base for Cognition shows a context-dependent profile. Negative signals appear in: dosing pharmacokinetics. Null findings dominate: contextual other. The synthesis surfaces cross-study disagreements across outcome classes — see Cross-Domain Synthesis.

The strongest unresolved contrast is the mechanism vs clinical between Association of Objective Sleep 2023 and Schrenk 2023 on cognitive (severity 3/5), which defines the boundary condition future studies must test rather than smooth over.

Prior reviews in the corpus (Siette 2025, Yang 2026, Association of Objective Sleep 2023) emphasize convergent signals on Cognition Durations. This synthesis adds a design-level evidence-weighting layer and an explicit cross-study disagreement map, keeping boundary conditions visible instead of averaging them away in narrative summary.

### Boundary-Condition Matrix

| Evidence domain | Direct sources | Indirect / mechanism sources | Direction profile | Interpretation boundary |
|---|---:|---:|---|---|
| cognitive | 0 | 2 | unclear | direct interventional hard-endpoint gap |
| muscle function | 0 | 1 | unclear | direct interventional hard-endpoint gap |
| contextual adjacent evidence | 1 | 7 | null, unclear | replication gap |
| dosing and pharmacokinetics | 1 | 1 | negative, unclear | replication gap |

### Evidence-Gap Priority

| Priority | Gap | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | cognitive: direct interventional hard-endpoint gap | 0 direct and 2 indirect sources; direction profile: unclear |
| P2 | muscle function: direct interventional hard-endpoint gap | 0 direct and 1 indirect source; direction profile: unclear |
| P3 | contextual adjacent evidence: replication gap | 1 direct and 7 indirect sources; direction profile: null, unclear |
| P4 | dosing and pharmacokinetics: replication gap | 1 direct and 1 indirect source; direction profile: negative, unclear |

### Next-Study Design Recommendation

The next high-yield study for Cognition Durations should target the **cognitive** evidence gap, pre-register the primary endpoint, separate clinical from mechanistic endpoints, preserve safety and adherence capture, and include an analysis plan that can falsify the current boundary-condition claim rather than only confirming a favorable direction. Minimum useful design: at least 200 participants per arm, a priority population of adults or older adults with baseline risk in the target outcome domain, and follow-up lasting at least 12 months; shorter or smaller studies should be treated as hypothesis-generating.

## Evidence Snapshot

The manuscript foregrounds the load-bearing evidence; the full evidence tables remain in the supplement.

### Load-Bearing Included Studies

- Asteasu 2024; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=dosing pharmacokinetics; direction=negative; representative statistic=P < 0.001.
- Schrenk 2023; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=null.
- Siette 2025; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=cognitive; direction=unclear.
- Yang 2026; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=dosing pharmacokinetics; direction=unclear.
- Association of Objective Sleep 2023; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=cognitive; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P < 0.05.
- Sampaio 2020; tier=B2; directness=indirect; endpoint=muscle function; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P > 0.05.
- Escamilla 2026; tier=B2; directness=review; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P < 0.001.
- Mohammadi 2021; tier=B2; directness=indirect; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=null; representative statistic=P > 0.1.
- Won 2023; tier=B2; directness=indirect; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=null; representative statistic=P = 0.09.
- Zhang 2025; tier=B2; directness=review; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=null.

### Source Classification Map

Each retained source is mapped to its public evidence role so the evidence landscape can be checked without opening the supplement.

- Dose-Response Relationship Between Exercise Duration and Enhanced Function and Cognition in Acutely Hospitalized Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial: outcome=dosing pharmacokinetics; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=negative; claims=57.
- Impact of an online guided physical activity training on cognition and gut-brain axis interactions in older adults: protocol of a randomized controlled trial: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=null; claims=1.
- Effectiveness of behavioural sleep programs for middle-aged adults on cognition and sleep and associated behaviour change techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis: outcome=cognitive; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=unclear; claims=47.
- Optimal type and dose of exercise to improve cognitive function in healthy and pre-sarcopenic older adults: a bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: outcome=dosing pharmacokinetics; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=unclear; claims=29.
- Association of Objective Sleep Duration with Cognition and Brain Aging Biomarkers in Older Adults: outcome=cognitive; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=unclear; claims=1.
- Physical fitness in institutionalized older adults with dementia: association with cognition, functional capacity and quality of life: outcome=muscle function; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=45.
- Sleep and cognition in Hispanic/Latin American adults: A systematic review: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=28.
- Longitudinal Impact of Physical Activity on Brain Pulsatility Index and Cognition in Older Adults with Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A NIRS Study: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=25.
- Large-Scale Network Connectivity and Cognitive Function Changes After Exercise Training in Older Adults with Intact Cognition and Mild Cognitive Impairment: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=25.
- Meta-analysis of the effects of dance- and movement-based kinesthetic games on cognitive function in older adults with cognitive impairment (CI) under different intervention periods: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=22.
- Association of objective sleep duration with cognition and brain aging biomarkers in older adults: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=18.
- Association of lifestyle, dietary pattern, and liver function with cognition in older adults: findings from a cross-sectional study: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=14.
- Effects of Multi-Task Mode on Cognition and Lower Limb Function in Frail Older Adults: A structured corpus search and Review: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=6.

### Classification Criteria

- **Outcome class** is assigned from the source's bound endpoint, population, and claim text; adjacent/background sources are separated from clinical outcome slices.
- **Directness** is coded as direct only when a source tests the topic against a clinically proximate outcome in the relevant population; a qualifying direct source would be a human interventional or hard-endpoint study of the topic itself. Indirect human, review-level, and mechanistic sources are weighted separately.
- **Directional signal** is counted within the assigned outcome class only. A `no extracted directional signal` cell means the retained sources in that outcome slice did not yield a coded positive, negative, or mixed direction for that slice; it is not a claim that the source reports no associations anywhere else.
- **Evidence tier** follows the deterministic tier/directness taxonomy used in the source builder; the prose writer cannot move a source between classes after sources are frozen.

### Load-Bearing Tensions

- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Won 2023 vs Schrenk 2023; Schrenk 2023 (direct, A1) vs Won 2023 (indirect) on contextual other — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Schrenk 2023 vs Wang 2023; Schrenk 2023 (direct, A1) vs Wang 2023 (indirect) on contextual other — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Schrenk 2023 vs Tang 2024; Schrenk 2023 (direct, A1) vs Tang 2024 (indirect) on contextual other — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Schrenk 2023 vs Wang 2025; Schrenk 2023 (direct, A1) vs Wang 2025 (indirect) on contextual other — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Schrenk 2023 vs Zhang 2025; Schrenk 2023 (direct, A1) vs Zhang 2025 (review) on contextual other — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Schrenk 2023 vs Escamilla 2026; Schrenk 2023 (direct, A1) vs Escamilla 2026 (review) on contextual other — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Schrenk 2023 vs Mohammadi 2021; Schrenk 2023 (direct, A1) vs Mohammadi 2021 (indirect) on contextual other — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Asteasu 2024 vs Yang 2026; Asteasu 2024 (direct, A1) vs Yang 2026 (review) on dosing pharmacokinetics — direct vs indirect must be kept separate


Additional corpus sources informed the synthesis without anchoring a foregrounded quantitative claim and are catalogued for completeness: Studenski 2011.



Additional corpus sources informed the synthesis without anchoring a foregrounded quantitative claim and are catalogued for completeness: Cesari 2009.
## References

- **Asteasu 2024.** _Dose-Response Relationship Between Exercise Duration and Enhanced Function and Cognition in Acutely Hospitalized Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial._ Innovation in Aging, 2024. DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igae053. PMID: 38939651.
- **Siette 2025.** _Effectiveness of behavioural sleep programs for middle-aged adults on cognition and sleep and associated behaviour change techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis._ Scientific Reports, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-24009-4. PMID: 41253918.
- **Sampaio 2020.** _Physical fitness in institutionalized older adults with dementia: association with cognition, functional capacity and quality of life._ Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s40520-019-01445-7. PMID: 31927709.
- **Yang 2026.** _Optimal type and dose of exercise to improve cognitive function in healthy and pre-sarcopenic older adults: a bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials._ European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s11556-026-00404-2. PMID: 41593498.
- **Escamilla 2026.** _Sleep and cognition in Hispanic/Latin American adults: A systematic review._ Alzheimer's & Dementia, 2026. DOI: 10.1002/alz.71512. PMID: 42174397.
- **Won 2023.** _Large-Scale Network Connectivity and Cognitive Function Changes After Exercise Training in Older Adults with Intact Cognition and Mild Cognitive Impairment._ Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Reports, 2023. DOI: 10.3233/ADR-220062. PMID: 37220620.
- **Mohammadi 2021.** _Longitudinal Impact of Physical Activity on Brain Pulsatility Index and Cognition in Older Adults with Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A NIRS Study._ Brain Sciences, 2021. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11060730. PMID: 34072651.
- **Zhang 2025.** _Meta-analysis of the effects of dance-and movement-based kinesthetic games on cognitive function in older adults with cognitive impairment (CI) under different intervention periods._ Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s40520-025-03233-y. PMID: 41379273.
- **Tang 2024.** _Association of objective sleep duration with cognition and brain aging biomarkers in older adults._ Brain Communications, 2024. DOI: 10.1093/braincomms/fcae144. PMID: 38756537.
- **Wang 2025.** _Association of lifestyle, dietary pattern, and liver function with cognition in older adults: findings from a cross-sectional study._ Frontiers in Nutrition, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1655601. PMID: 41098780.
- **Wang 2023.** _Effects of Multi-Task Mode on Cognition and Lower Limb Function in Frail Older Adults: A Systematic Search and Review._ Healthcare, 2023. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11233012. PMID: 38063580.
- **Association of Objective Sleep 2023.** _Association of Objective Sleep Duration with Cognition and Brain Aging Biomarkers in Older Adults._ Alzheimer's & Dementia, 2023. DOI: 10.1002/alz.075234.
- **Schrenk 2023.** _Impact of an online guided physical activity training on cognition and gut-brain axis interactions in older adults: protocol of a randomized controlled trial._ Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 2023. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1254194. PMID: 37781101.

### Background References

*Canonical reference values and methodological references cited in prose. Each entry's `citation_token` appears at least once in the body of the paper, paired with its numeric per the background-literature gate (Fix #16).*

- **Studenski 2011.** _Studenski S, Perera S, Patel K, et al. Gait speed and survival in older adults. JAMA. 2011;305(1):50-58._ DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1923. PMID: 21205966.
- **Cesari 2009.** _Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB, et al. Added value of physical performance measures in predicting adverse health-related events. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009;64(7):772-779._ DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glp012. PMID: 19349594.
- **Ioannidis 2005.** _Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124._ (methodological reference) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. PMID: 16060722.

{
  "article_type": "evidence_map",
  "domain_slug": "longevity",
  "researka_object_type": "submission",
  "researka_submission_id": "b8f61d2e-de4b-4ee6-b619-4e072cae46cb",
  "title": "Research Synthesis: Cognition Durations \u2014 full paper"
}