This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Gamma entrainment using sensory stimulation (GENUS) is a noninvasive approach under investigation in older adults with and without cognitive impairment, including Alzheimer’s disease; however, human evidence remains scattered across structural, functional, biomarker, electrophysiological, and cognitive domains. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for English-language articles published from January 2016 to December 2025, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and a retrospectively registered PROSPERO protocol. Eligible studies evaluated non-invasive sensory gamma-frequency stimulation in adults aged ≥ 60 years, including Alzheimer’s disease-spectrum and cognitively normal older adults, with quantitative outcomes reported in at least one relevant domain. Narrative synthesis was the primary approach, supplemented by an exploratory random-effects meta-analysis of hippocampal and ventricular volume change. Eight studies were included, spanning single-session to 6-month interventions. Findings were directionally favorable across domains but derived from small, heterogeneous studies with nonoverlapping outcomes. Fluid biomarker evidence was limited to exploratory immune-related findings from a single uncontrolled study. Controlled structural studies suggested possible attenuation of hippocampal atrophy, ventricular enlargement, and white matter decline. Functional connectivity findings suggested possible preservation of connectivity in Alzheimer’s disease-relevant networks. Electroencephalography studies supported target engagement, with entrainment strength and propagation varying according to stimulation parameters and individual characteristics. Cognitive findings from small exploratory studies did not establish a consistent benefit. Exploratory pooled effects for ventricular and hippocampal volume change were favorable but not robust to conservative sensitivity analysis. Human evidence for GENUS is promising but preliminary and hypothesis-generating; larger, adequately powered, standardized trials are needed before firm efficacy conclusions can be drawn.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hyun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: