Effect of neurobic exercise on memory enhancement in the elderly with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this Quasi-experimental research was to examine the effect of Neurobic Exercise on the Memory Enhancement in the Elderly people suffering from Dementia. During January to September 2012, twenty two female older adults suffering from dementia who were residing at Mitraparpsongkoh Foundation, PathumThani Province in Thailand, were purposively selected to participate in this research. Selected participants were involved in Neurobic Exercise Program on every 2 days continuously for 4 weeks. The instruments consisted of a Demographic Data Form, the Mini-Mental State Examination- Thai 2002, the Memory test and a Neurobic Exercise Program. The reliability of the Mini-Mental State Examination- Thai 2002 and the memory test using Kuder- Richadson 20 were.89 and .81 respectively. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Paired t-test. The results revealed that the average memory scores of the experimental group after receiving the Neurobic Exercise Program were statistically and significantly higher than before receiving the Neurobic Exercise Program at a level of p < .001. The results of this study could be used as guidelines by health care providers in enhancing the memory retention of the elderly people suffering from dementia and delaying the deterioration of the brain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".