Cognitive stimulation in cognitively impaired individuals and cognitively healthy individuals with a family history of dementia: short‐term results from the “Allena‐Mente” randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the short-term efficacy of a protocol of cognitive stimulation (CS), compared with a sham intervention, on cognitive performance in cognitively healthy individuals with a family history of dementia (NDFAM) and in non-demented individuals with cognitive impairment (CI). METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial of CS in NDFAM and CI. CS consisted in 10 twice weekly meetings of CS focused on a specific cognitive area. CS was compared with a sham intervention (CT) using Mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the Corsi test. All study participants were typed for the presence of apolipoprotein E (APOE)-Ɛ4. RESULTS: Cognitively healthy NDFAM showed a higher net cognitive gain after CS, as reflected in their MoCA score, and a borderline significant net increase in visuospatial memory (Corsi test) compared with those receiving the CT. APOE-Ɛ4 carriers showed a less significant improvement on the Corsi test with respect to APOE-Ɛ4 non-carriers. In the CI sample, the MoCA and Corsi test results did not differ between the cognitively stimulated subjects and the controls. No changes in MMSE scores were found in either sample of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that CS as structured in this study is an effective treatment in cognitively healthy individuals, whereas it is less effective in individuals with CI. Moreover, evaluation of APOE-Ɛ4 status provided evidence of a substantial genetic contribution to the efficacy of CS on visuospatial memory as measured using the Corsi test.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".