A randomised controlled trial of aerobic exercise after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke to prevent cognitive decline: the MoveIT study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or stroke are at risk for cognitive impairment and dementia. Currently, there is no known effective strategy to prevent this cognitive decline. Increasing evidence exists that physical exercise is beneficial for cognitive function. However, in patients with TIA or stroke who are at risk of cognitive impairment and dementia, only a few trials have been conducted. In this study, we aim to investigate whether a physical exercise programme (MoveIT) can prevent cognitive decline in patients in the acute phase after a TIA or minor ischaemic stroke. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A single-blinded randomised controlled trial will be conducted to investigate the effect of an aerobic exercise programme on cognition compared with usual care. 120 adult patients with a TIA or minor ischaemic stroke less than 1 month ago will be randomly allocated to an exercise programme consisting of a 12-week aerobic exercise programme and regular follow-up visits to a specialised physiotherapist during the period of 1 year or to usual care. Outcome measures will be assessed at the baseline, and at the 1-year and 2-year follow-up. The primary outcome is cognitive functioning measured with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test and with additional neuropsychological tests. Secondary outcomes include maximal exercise capacity, self-reported physical activity and measures of secondary prevention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethical approval from the VU University Amsterdam Ethics committee (2011/383). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. We will also disseminate the main results to our participants in a letter. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Nederlands Trial Register NTR3884.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.009 |
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".