P3–257: The effect of cognitive stimulation on cognition in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence base for the effectiveness of cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) for dementia in relation to cognitive function has been consistently demonstrated by a recent systematic review (Woods et al., 2012). Studies analyzed included 718 participants (407 receiving cognitive stimulation, 311 in control groups) with small changes reported in multiple trials on commonly used brief measures of cognitive function; adverse effects have not been reported. These benefits are over and above any medication effects. Although more research is needed, results suggest that continuing involvement in CST may be beneficial. Objective: To analyze that CST for older people with mild to moderate dementia would benefit cognition. A randomized controlled trial recruited 33 older people, 13 men and 23 women, mean age 79.19 years (± 9.43), with mild to moderate dementia, 19 to the intervention group and 17 to the control group. The intervention group was submitted to 14 sessions (7 weeks) using the cognitive stimulation program “Making a difference” (Spector et al., 2006) and the controls to usual care. The main outcome measure was change in cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment - MOCA), European Portuguese version. The intervention group had significantly improved on the MOCA (+1,11) when compared to the control group -1,38(t = 2.168, p = 0.040). Despite the limitations, related to the limited sample size the program of cognitive stimulation appears to have efficacy in improving elders cognition reinforcing international evidence (Woods et al., 2012). Thus, it would advise its implementation as a component of context of care in nursing homes. Further studies should include larger samples, as well as maintenance interventions and follow-up in order to strengthen and clarify these results. References Spector A., Thorgrimsen L., B. Woods, M. & Orrell (2006). Making a Difference: An evidence-based group Programme to offer cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) to people with dementia: Manual for group leaders. London: Hawker Publications. Woods, B., Aguirre, E., Spector. A., & Orrell, M. (2012) Cognitive stimulation to Improve Cognitive Functioning in people with dementia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2, Art No.: CD005562.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".