Impact of Physical Activity on Alzheimer’s Disease: A Randomised Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To study the effects of physical training on behavior and balance issues in elderly people afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease. Method: Forty patients (average age: 80 years old) participated in the study. The individuals were placed into two groups: a control group, which did not participate in any kind of training, and a trained group, which followed an eight-week training program. The training program comprised 2–3 sessions of light physical activity or walking per week; each session had an average duration of 15–55 min. Before (T1) and after (T2) the training program, an assessment of the psychical, psychological, physical, and functional parameters was conducted. Results: Upon completion of the physical training program, there was a significant (p < 0.05) improvement in the Tinetti test (T1: 19.5 ± 4.2 s; T2: 20.1 ± 4.1 s), a significant decrease in the completion time of the “get up and go” track for all of the participants (T1: 23.1 ± 8.1 s; T2: 19.5 ± 6.1 s), and a significant reduction in the seriousness of the behavioral issues observed. Conclusion: This preliminary study revealed that physical training had an overall beneficial impact on Alzheimer’s patients, especially on their behavior and balance.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".