MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007381949 · doi:10.1682/jrrd.2013.10.0231

Two-week virtual reality training for dementia: Single case feasibility study

2014· article· en· W2007381949 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsBruyère
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaVirtual realityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBalance (ability)Balance trainingPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)CognitionPsychologyCognitive trainingFocus groupMedicineApplied psychologyComputer scienceNursingHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persons with dementia (PWD) are known to have difficulty with participation and focus during physical activity. Virtual reality (VR) offers a unique medium for motor learning but has only been used previously for cognitive assessment for PWD. Our study had two objectives: (1) investigate the feasibility and safety of an exercise-based VR training program in PWD, and (2) investigate its effects on balance and mobility. The intervention consisted of daily (5 d/wk, 1 h each) VR training sessions for 2 wk for a single research participant. Clinical balance and mobility measures were assessed 1 wk prior to, during, 1 wk following, and 1 mo after the intervention. Postintervention interviews provided qualitative feedback from the participant and his caregivers. Results indicate that VR training is feasible, safe, and enjoyable for PWD. However, balance and mobility measures were unaffected. VR training is well tolerated in a single research participant with dementia and is an engaging medium for participation in exercise.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.236
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it