Efecto de la actividad física aeróbica sobre el deterioro cognitivo leve y estadios tempranos de demencia en personas mayores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Increasing evidence supports that recurrent physical activity programs, especially those of the aerobic type, may have beneficial effects on cognitive function in older people who have cognitive impairment. Objective: To analyze the effect of an aerobic physical activity program on the cognitive status of older people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early stages of dementia. Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted with 62 older people from 8 civic centers in the city of A Coruna (72.48 ± 4.99 years). The Experimental Group (EG; n = 31) performed a progressive aerobic exercise program, consisting of city park walks (3 days per week / 1 hour duration / 3 months). The Control Group (CG; n = 31) performed a non-aerobic passive program. Both groups were assessed pre- and post-intervention using neurocognitive instruments: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Isaac Semantic Fluency Test (TFVs), Wais III Digits Test (TDG-Wais), Trail Making Test A (TMT-A) and physical tests: Six-Minute Walking Test (6MWT), Timed Up and Go (TUG) and Walking Speed in 6 Meters (VM-6m). Results: 57 people completed the study. The EG improved in all the physical tests over CG (p<0.05), only the MMSE and the TDG-Wais improved over CG with a mean post-intervention difference of 1.28 and 1.56 points respectively (p<0.05). The other cognitive tests improved only within the EG. A linear correlation was found at the end of the study between the distance walked in the TM6M and the score obtained in the MMSE. Rho = 0.407 (p<0.001). Conclusion: A three-month moderately-vigorous intensity aerobic training program positively impacts the cognitive performance of older people with MCI and mild 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".