Examining the effectiveness of a cognitive intervention to improve cognitive function in a population of older adults living with HIV: a pilot study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this randomized-controlled pilot study was to explore the effectiveness of a home-based computerized cognitive training intervention in improving cognitive function in a population of older adults with mild cognitive impairment who are living with HIV. Methods: In all, 24 participants were enrolled in this study. All study participants were impaired [defined as Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score < 26]; 12 were randomly assigned to a computer-training intervention group and 12 to a control group. The intervention group used a home-based computerized cognitive training program for 8 weeks, while the control group received health-related newsletter via email and follow-up phone calls. Cognitive function was measured at study entry, immediately post intervention, and 8 and 16 weeks post intervention Results: This study achieved a 92% retention rate, losing two persons from the intervention group. Participants in the intervention group scored significantly higher on cognitive testing immediately post intervention compared to the control group: F(1, 19) = 4.92, p = 0.04. The partial Eta squared of 0.32 indicates a small to moderate effect size. Discussion: Cognitive improvement was seen immediately after the intervention, and cognitive improvement was still evident 16 weeks post intervention. Cognitive training could be considered as an option for older adults with HIV experiencing 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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it