Ali · Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2026 · umbrella review · n=7 systematic reviews (68 primary studies)

APOE ε4, physical activity, and the brain: a review of systematic reviews.

Cited 0 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review of systematic reviews (umbrella review) synthesizing randomized and observational evidence

PubMed 42564156 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2026.1798639 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

This umbrella review evaluated whether associations between physical activity and cognitive, fluid biomarker, neuroimaging, and vascular/metabolic outcomes differ by apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE ε4) genotype across stages of cognitive aging. Authors screened systematic reviews and meta-analyses to extract primary studies evaluating physical activity in adults grouped by baseline cognitive status (cognitively unimpaired, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia). Primary studies reporting APOE ε4-stratified outcomes were extracted from 7 included systematic reviews (encompassing 68 unique primary studies) and qualitatively synthesized across cognitive stages, outcome domains, and study designs.

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical effect sizes or quantitative summary metrics. Favorable associations between physical activity and cognitive, biomarker, neuroimaging, and vascular/metabolic outcomes were most commonly identified in observational studies of younger or cognitively unimpaired adults, with several indicating stronger associations in APOE ε4 carriers (including midlife cognition, neuroimaging markers, and lipid profiles). Conversely, randomized controlled trials were few, predominantly enrolled older individuals with mild cognitive impairment or dementia, had small APOE ε4 subgroups, and reported largely null or mixed genotype-specific outcomes.

Why it matters

This review highlights that while observational data link physical activity to better brain and metabolic outcomes in APOE ε4 carriers, randomized trial evidence remains insufficient to confirm a genotype-specific preventive benefit.

Limits

The abstract lacks pooled quantitative effect sizes or formal meta-analytic numbers. The primary evidence base is limited by underpowered APOE ε4 subgroups in clinical trials and a reliance on late-stage, cognitively impaired populations rather than early-stage preventive cohorts.

Cited by