Improvement of Episodic Memory in Persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Healthy Older Adults: Evidence from a Cognitive Intervention Program
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
The efficacy of cognitive training was assessed in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and persons with normal cognitive aging. Forty-seven participants were included in this study: 28 with MCI and 17 controls. Twenty-one participants received intervention (20 MCI and 9 controls) and 16 participants (8 MCI and 8 controls) received no intervention (waiting-list group). The intervention focused on teaching episodic memory strategies. Three tasks of episodic memory (list recall, face-name association, text memory) were used as primary outcome measures. Results were analyzed using analyses of variance. The intervention effect (pre- and post-intervention difference) was significant on two of the primary outcome measures (delayed list recall and face-name association). A significant pre-post-effect was also found on measures of subjective memory and well-being. There was no improvement in the performance of groups of individuals with MCI and normal elderly persons who did not receive the intervention. These results suggest that persons with MCI can improve their performance on episodic memory when provided with cognitive training.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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