MOTOR-COGNITIVE TRAINING IMPROVES BALANCE AND COGNITION OF PATIENTS WITH PARKINSON’S DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the effects of motor-cognitive training on individuals with Parkinson disease (PD) compared with community dwelling elderly. Method: This is a randomized clinical trial, in which participated five elderly people [mean age 68.3 (2.03) years] and five patients with idiopathic PD [mean age 67.7 (2.1) years, stages 1–3 in the Hoehn and Yahr scale]. Participants underwent 14 training sessions of one hour of duration each one, twice a week. Training was conducted in groups with a maximum of five elderlies. The program included challenging exercises for balance and cognition, including warming up, strengthening, flexibility, aerobic training, gait, balance and transfer training. Participants were assessed pre and post-test and after 30 days [follow-up (FU)]. Cognition and balance were assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest), respectively. Study was registered in Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (RBR-27kqv5). Results: Both groups showed improvement on balance and cognition post-test with maintenance of its effects on the FU. However, this improvement was substantial in the elderly group, but there was is not difference between groups. The mean (SD) scores in scales evaluated in the elderly were: Mini-BESTest were: 26.9 ± 3.4 (pre-test), 29.4 ± 3.7 (post-test) and 28.7 ± 2.8 (FU); MoCA were 24.0 ± 5.2 (pre-test), 26.7 ± 3.3 (post-test) and 26.9 ± 4.4 (FU). The mean (SD) scores of PD patients on Mini-BESTest were: 24.0 ± 3.9 (pre-test), 24.4 ± 4.1 (post-test) and 26.3 ± 3.7 (FU); MoCA were 21.3 ± 4.5 (pre-test), 23.6 ± 5.5 (post-test) and 23.4 ± 4.5 (FU). Conclusion: The proposed intervention promoted improvement on balance and cognition in PD patients and community dwelling elderly.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".