Cardiorespiratory fitness and cognitive functioning following short-term interventions in chronic stroke survivors with cognitive impairment: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study, a quasi-experimental, one-group pretest-post-test design, evaluated the effects on cognitive functioning and cardiorespiratory fitness of 8-week interventions (aerobic exercise alone and aerobic exercise and cognitive training combined) in patients with chronic stroke and cognitive impairment living in the community (participants: n=14, 61.93±9.90 years old, 51.50±38.22 months after stroke, n=7 per intervention group). Cognitive functions and cardiorespiratory fitness were evaluated before and after intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up visit (episodic memory: revised-Hopkins Verbal Learning Test; working memory: Brown-Peterson paradigm; attention omission and commission errors: Continuous Performance Test; cardiorespiratory fitness: peak oxygen uptake during a symptom-limited, graded exercise test performed on a semirecumbent ergometer). Friedman's two-way analysis of variance by ranks evaluated differences in score distributions related to time (for the two groups combined). Post-hoc testing was adjusted for multiple comparisons. Compared with before the intervention, there was a significant reduction in attention errors immediately following the intervention (omission errors: 14.6±21.5 vs. 8±13.9, P=0.01; commission errors: 16.4±6.3 vs. 10.9±7.2, P=0.04), and in part at follow-up (omission errors on follow-up: 3.4±4.3, P=0.03; commission errors on follow-up: 13.2±7.6, P=0.42). These results suggest that attention may improve in chronic stroke survivors with cognitive impairment following short-term training that includes an aerobic component, without a change in cardiorespiratory fitness. Randomized-controlled studies are required to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".