Cognitive intervention through a training program for picture book reading in community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-pharmacological interventions are expected to be important strategies for reducing the age-adjusted prevalence of senile dementia, considering that complete medical treatment for cognitive decline has not yet been developed. From the viewpoint of long-term continuity of activity, it is necessary to develop various cognitive stimulating programs. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a cognitive intervention through a training program for picture book reading for community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Fifty-eight Japanese older participants were divided into the intervention and control groups using simple randomization (n =29 vs 29). In the intervention group, participants took part in a program aimed at learning and mastering methods of picture book reading as a form of cognitive training intervention. The control group listened to lectures about elderly health maintenance. Cognitive tests were conducted individually before and after the programs. RESULTS: The rate of memory retention, computed by dividing Logical Memory delayed recall by immediate recall, showed a significant interaction (p < .05) in analysis of covariance. Simple main effects showed that the rate of memory retention of the intervention group improved after the program completion (p < .05). In the participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) examined by Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) (n =14 vs 15), significant interactions were seen in Trail Making Test-A (p < .01), Trail Making Test-B (p < .05), Kana pick-out test (p < .05) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention effect was found in delayed verbal memory. This program is also effective for improving attention and executive function in those with MCI. The short-term interventional findings suggest that this program might contribute to preventing a decline in memory and executive function. TRIAL REGISTRATION UMIN-CTR: UMIN000014712 (Date of ICMJE and WHO compliant trial information disclosure: 30 July 2014).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".