Measuring the impact of cognitive and psychosocial interventions in persons with mild cognitive impairment with a randomized single-blind controlled trial: rationale and design of the MEMO+ study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that cognitive training is a potentially effective way to improve cognition and postpone cognitive decline in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The MEMO+ study is a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial designed to test the efficacy, specificity, and long-term effect of a cognitive training intervention and a psychosocial intervention in persons with MCI. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-two participants with MCI will be recruited. They will be randomized into three groups: cognitive training, psychosocial intervention, and no-contact. Each intervention will last for eight weeks (one session per week) and a booster training session will be provided three months after the end of the intervention. Various proximal and distal outcomes will be measured at pre-intervention as well as at one week, three months, and six months post-training. Proximal outcomes include memory and psychological health measures. Distal outcomes focus on self-rated functioning in complex daily activities and strategies used in daily life to enhance function. Socio-demographic factors (age, gender, and education), general cognition, personality traits, engagement in activities, and self-efficacy will be used as moderators. Enrolment began in April 2012 and will be completed by December 2014. CONCLUSIONS: This study is likely to have a significant impact on the well-being of persons with MCI by contributing to the development of adapted and scientifically supported cognitive and psychosocial interventions.
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 | 0.040 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".