Changing everyday memory behaviour in amnestic mild cognitive impairment: A randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the defining differences between mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia is the degree of independence in everyday activities. Effecting memory-related behavioural change in MCI could help maintain daily function and prolong the time before onset of dependency. However, it is well known that changing previously well-established behaviours is difficult to achieve. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary group-based intervention programme in changing everyday memory behaviour in individuals with amnestic MCI. The intervention provided evidenced-based memory training and lifestyle education to optimise memory behaviour. Fifty-four participants were randomly assigned to treatment or waitlist-control conditions. Consistent with our primary goal, treatment participants showed an increase in memory-strategy knowledge and use from pre-test to immediate post-test, and these gains were maintained at three-month post-test relative to waitlist controls. There were no group differences in memory beliefs or on laboratory tests of objective memory performance. The increase in memory-strategy knowledge and use was associated with the degree of participation in the programme. Individuals with MCI, therefore, can acquire and maintain knowledge about memory strategies and, importantly, can change their everyday memory behaviour by putting this knowledge into practice. This incorporation of practical memory strategies into daily routines could potentially provide the means for maintaining functional independence by individuals with MCI, an issue to be addressed in future research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".