The Effects of COgNitive Training in Community-dwelling Older Adults at High Risk for demENTia (CONTENT): study protocol of two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Introduction Dementia contributes to the disease burden worldwide, and people with hypertension or type 2 diabetes are associated with an elevated risk of developing dementia. It is essential to prevent or delay cognitive decline in people at high risk within the community. Our trials aim to evaluate the effects of adaptive cognitive training on community-dwelling older adults with hypertension or type 2 diabetes but no dementia. Method and analysis Two multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, named COgNitive Training in community-dwelling older adults at high risk for demENTia and with Hypertension (CONTENT-Hypertension) and COgNitive Training in community-dwelling older adults at high risk for demENTia and with Diabetes (CONTENT-Diabetes), will be conducted to investigate the effects of adaptive cognitive training on participants aged 60 years or above who have been diagnosed with hypertension or type 2 diabetes but no dementia. Each trial will enroll 120 participants. Participants will be recruited from local community in Shijingshan and Haidian District, Beijing, and allocated to either the intervention or control group using a 1:1 ratio. The intervention group will engage in 12 weeks of adaptive cognitive training, while the control group will receive 12 weeks of placebo cognitive training. A 24-week follow-up assessment will be conducted for all participants to evaluate the persistency of the effects. The primary outcome is the 12-week change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Basic scores from baseline to the end of the intervention (12 weeks). Secondary outcomes include 6-week and 24-week changes in the MoCA from baseline; 6-week, 12-week, and 24-week changes in Trail Making Test-A&B (TMT-A, TMT-B), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), the World Health Organization/University of California at Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test (WHO-UCLA AVLT), and Boston naming test (BNT) scores of cognitive functions; 6-week and 12-week changes in Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI); and 12-week change in blood pressure (CONTENT-Hypertension) or fasting blood glucose and HbA1c (CONTENT-Diabetes) from baseline. Ethics and dissemination This study will adhere to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and comply with international standards for Good Clinical Practice (GCP). All participants will sign the informed consent at baseline. This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (approval numbers: 2023-139 and 2024-162). The findings of the trials will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at academic conferences. Trial registration numbers NCT06512922 and NCT06524388 . STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY Both trials are double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials to investigate the effects of adaptive cognitive training among patients with hypertension or type 2 diabetes but no dementia. The rigorous randomized control trial design can ensure the reliability and efficacy of the trial. Adaptive cognitive training will automatically target the most impaired cognitive domains (domain-adaptive). The difficulty of cognitive training tasks will upgrade to the next level once the participants reach a high accuracy of 80% (difficulty-adaptive), which enables targeted and efficient training. The use of placebo cognitive training can reduce the impact of the placebo effect on the results. All training will be conducted remotely, allowing participants to complete the program from their homes to increase convenience and participant compliance.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,031 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,022 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,031 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».