PLOS ONE published a formal correction to the systematic review and meta-analysis titled “Nonlinear dose-response of mind-body exercise in older adults with mild cognitive impairment.” The correction amends two reference citations in the Discussion: the last two references in the sixth sentence of the third paragraph should cite references 66 and 67, not 64 and 65. The publisher dated the correction October 22, 2026, and the notice includes the DOI for the correction record.
Investigators reported that long-term intervention drives cumulative structural modifications in pivotal brain regions such as the hippocampus and anterior cingulate cortex [39,46,64,65], enhances functional connectivity between associated brain areas [66], and builds up sustained neuroprotective effects at the molecular level [67]. This is the precise sentence supplied by the correction notice; the change affects only which studies are cited for the statements about functional connectivity and molecular neuroprotection. The correction did not alter the sentence text itself beyond the citation numbers.
Reference 66: The correction lists Liu J, Tao J, Liu W, Huang J, Xue X, Li M, et al., a 2019 paper that compared modulation effects of Tai Chi Chuan and Baduanjin on resting-state functional connectivity of the default mode network in older adults (Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2019;14:217–224). The correction attributes the functional connectivity claim in the Discussion to this study.
Reference 67: The correction lists Gan J, He J, Zhou K, Shang Z, Dong G, Bao D, et al., a systematic review and meta-analysis published in J Exerc Sci Fit (2025;23:32–41) that examined the effects of traditional Chinese exercises on brain-derived neurotrophic factor in middle-aged and older adults. The correction assigns the molecular neuroprotection claim to this review.
The correction notice provides the two full citations and DOIs for these entries. The notice did not report any change to the original review’s data extraction, meta-analytic results, or other text beyond the citation numbering.
The correction is linked to the original PLoS One article (Peng Y-F, Chen X, Zhu G-Q, Qu G-C. Nonlinear dose-response of mind-body exercise in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2026;21(9):e0350867). The correction entry itself carries its own DOI (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361388) and is recorded as a separate, citable item in the journal’s archive. The correction notice is open access and available as part of the journal record; readers can download the printable PDF and follow the CrossMark status indicator for updates.
Readers who rely on the original article’s Discussion for source attribution should note the corrected citation mapping: functional connectivity claims are now explicitly tied to the 2019 resting-state connectivity study, and molecular-level neuroprotective claims are tied to the 2025 review of traditional Chinese exercise effects on brain-derived neurotrophic factor. The correction does not report any changes to the original article’s numerical results, meta-analytic outcomes, or primary conclusions.
Those using the original article for literature synthesis, guideline development, or citation in clinical reviews should update their references to reflect the corrected citation numbers. The correction notice did not indicate additional textual edits or further errata. For full methodological detail, trial-level data, dose-response modelling, or outcome measures referenced in the systematic review and meta-analysis, readers must consult the original PLoS One article (2026;21(9):e0350867); the correction does not substitute for the source article.
Limitations and unresolved items documented by the correction: the notice addresses only a citation numbering error in the Discussion. The correction does not report amendments to study methods, effect sizes, heterogeneity metrics, risk-of-bias assessments, or subgroup analyses from the original systematic review and meta-analysis. No other corrections or retractions were listed in the correction record.
If investigators or clinicians require confirmation of which primary studies support particular mechanistic claims (for example, structural hippocampal change versus functional connectivity versus molecular biomarkers), they should verify the primary citations in the original article and in the two corrected references (66 and 67) as cited in the correction. The journal’s correction provides the accurate mapping but does not replace consultation of the primary literature for clinical or research decision-making.