The Healthy Mind, Healthy Mobility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More evidence is needed to conclude that a specific program of exercise and/or cognitive training warrants prescription for the prevention of cognitive decline. We examined the effect of a group-based standard exercise program for older adults, with and without dual-task training, on cognitive function in older adults without dementia. METHODS: We conducted a proof-of-concept, single-blinded, 26-wk randomized controlled trial whereby participants recruited from preexisting exercise classes at the Canadian Centre for Activity and Aging in London, Ontario, were randomized to the intervention group (exercise + dual-task [EDT]) or the control group (exercise only [EO]). Each week (2 or 3 d · wk(-1)), both groups accumulated a minimum of 50 min of aerobic exercise (target 75 min) from standard group classes and completed 45 min of beginner-level square-stepping exercise. The EDT group was also required to answer cognitively challenging questions while doing beginner-level square-stepping exercise (i.e., dual-task training). The effect of interventions on standardized global cognitive function (GCF) scores at 26 wk was compared between the groups using the linear mixed effects model approach. RESULTS: Participants (n = 44; 68% female; mean [SD] age: 73.5 [7.2] yr) had on average, objective evidence of cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, mean [SD]: 24.9 [1.9]) but not dementia (Mini-Mental State Examination scores, mean [SD]: 28.8 [1.2]). After 26 wk, the EDT group showed greater improvement in GCF scores compared with the EO group (difference between groups in mean change [95% CI]: 0.20 SD [0.01-0.39], P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: A 26-wk group-based exercise program combined with dual-task training improved GCF in community-dwelling older adults without dementia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".