EFFECTIVENESS OF COGNITIVE STIMULATION IN MAINTAINING COGNITIVE CAPACITY OF AN ELDERLY COHORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study objective is to analyze the effectiveness of health promotion actions in the prevention of functional losses due to cognitive impairment of the elderly. It is a controlled intervention study, nestled within a cohort population resident in the neighborhood Vila Clementino, in São Paulo city, Brazil. From the application of the CDR (Clinical Dementia Rating), the elderly were classified as cognitively normal (CDR = 0) and with mild cognitive impairment (CDR = 0.5) and were randomly allocated in the intervention and control groups.. The elderly had undergone a screening for depression, neuropsychological tests (MoCA, MEEM, list of words and naming animals) and an evaluation of independence in daily life. The intervention groups attended the “Memories Workshops” (MW) twice a week in a total of 34 meetings, 80-minute-long each (physical activity, computer activity and chat about the workshop experience). Preliminary results have shown that a non-pharmacological intervention such as the MW can have a positive impact in the functional capacity of a population sample of elderly with CDR <1, as it promotes the maintenance/improvement of cognitive functionality measured by the MoCA score when compared with controls, especially if the degree of improvement or worsening in the score is controlled in the analysis (among those who had greater improvement the majority was in the intervention group). The study is still including subjects to enlarge the sample and thus enable a more robust statistic of effectiveness of this kind of intervention in the primary health care level, as a protective factor against cognitive losses of this age-group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".