Cognitive training for persons with mild cognitive impairment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent randomized control trials and meta-analyses of experimental studies indicate positive effects of non-pharmacological cognitive training on the cognitive function of healthy older adults. Furthermore, a large-scale randomized control trial with older adults, independent at entry, indicated that training delayed their cognitive and functional decline over a five-year follow-up. This supports cognitive training as a potentially efficient method to postpone cognitive decline in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Most of the research on the effect of cognitive training in MCI has reported increased performance following training on objective measures of memory whereas a minority reported no effect of training on objective cognitive measures. Interestingly, some of the studies that reported a positive effect of cognitive training in persons with MCI have observed large to moderate effect size. However, all of these studies have limited power and few have used long-term follow-ups or functional impact measures. Overall, this review highlights a need for a well-controlled randomized trial to assess the efficacy of cognitive training in MCI. It also raises a number of unresolved issues including proper outcome measures, issues of generalization and choice of intervention format.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it