MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168977574 · doi:10.1017/s1355617707070191

Cognitive rehabilitation in the elderly: Overview and future directions

2006· review· en· W2168977574 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Winocur, Fergus I. M. Craik, Brian Levine, Ian H. Robertson, Malcolm A. Binns, Michael P. Alexander, Sandra E. Black, Deirdre Dawson, Heather Palmer, Tara S. McHugh, Donald T. Stuss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSunnybrook Health Science CentreTrent UniversityBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationCognitionPsychologyCognitive rehabilitation therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides an overview of the papers emanating from the experimental trial that evaluated a new cognitive rehabilitation program in older adults who were experiencing normal cognitive decline. The main features of the design are summarized, along with evidence that the training produced long-lasting improvement in memory performance, goal management, and psychosocial status. The benefits were attributed to several factors, including the program's emphasis on techniques that promoted efficient strategic processing. Limitations of the program and directions for future research are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Neuropsychological SocietySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207