Effect of Cognitive Rehabilitation on Set-Shifting Attention of Adult with Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was the effect of Cognitive Rehabilitation on the Set-Shifting Attention Ability of Adult Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment. The present study consisted of a quasi-experimental study with pre-test and post-test stages. The statistical population consisted of subjects of more than 55 years of age, referred to a neurology clinic in Tehran/Iran in 2012. Forty patients with mild cognitive impairment were selected by convenience sampling based on the diagnosis of a neurologist and a clinical psychologist (MMSE score lower than 25 and The Wechsler Memory Test). The experimental group (20 patients) attended 12 sessions of a cognitive rehabilitation program. As evaluated, by the Wisconsin Cart Sorting Test (WCST). Data were analyzed using MANCOVA. The findings demonstrated that the mean score of the experimental group was greater than the control group (P<0.05) in terms of their shifting attention. The follow-up test revealed that the experimental group experienced an effective rehabilitation intervention over a six month period. Cognitive rehabilitation can impact on improving Shifting attention in individuals with mild cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".