The Mental Activity and eXercise (MAX) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia are projected to rise dramatically during the next 40 years, and strategies for maintaining cognitive function with age are critically needed. Physical or mental activity alone result in relatively small, domain-specific improvements in cognitive function in older adults; combined interventions may have more global effects. OBJECTIVE: To examine the combined effects of physical plus mental activity on cognitive function in older adults. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with a factorial design. SETTING: San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 126 inactive, community-residing older adults with cognitive complaints. INTERVENTIONS: All participants engaged in home-based mental activity (1 h/d, 3 d/wk) plus class-based physical activity (1 h/d, 3 d/wk) for 12 weeks and were randomized to either mental activity intervention (MA-I; intensive computer) or mental activity control (MA-C; educational DVDs) plus exercise intervention (EX-I; aerobic) or exercise control (EX-C; stretching and toning); a 2 × 2 factorial design was used so that there were 4 groups: MA-I/EX-I, MA-I/EX-C, MA-C/EX-1, and MA-C/EX-C. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Global cognitive change based on a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 73.4 years; 62.7% were women, and 34.9% were Hispanic or nonwhite. There were no significant differences between the groups at baseline. Global cognitive scores improved significantly over time (mean, 0.16 SD; P < .001) but did not differ between groups in the comparison between MA-I and MA-C (ignoring exercise, P = .17), the comparison between EX-I and EX-C (ignoring mental activity, P = .74), or across all 4 randomization groups (P = .26). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In inactive older adults with cognitive complaints, 12 weeks of physical plus mental activity was associated with significant improvements in global cognitive function with no evidence of difference between intervention and active control groups. These findings may reflect practice effects or may suggest that the amount of activity is more important than the type in this subject population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00522899.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".