MEMO+: Efficacy, Durability and Effect of Cognitive Training and Psychosocial Intervention in Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: There is no consensus on the efficacy of cognitive training in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) because of the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials. The objective was to assess the effect of memory training on the cognitive functioning of persons with MCI and its durability and to evaluate whether this effect generalizes to daily life and whether positive effects could be obtained from psychosocial intervention. DESIGN: Single-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Research centers of the Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal and Institut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults meeting criteria for amnestic MCI (N = 145). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to cognitive training, a psychosocial intervention, or a no-contact control condition. Interventions were provided in small groups in eight 2-hour sessions. MEASUREMENT: Outcome measures were immediate and delayed composite performance memory scores, psychological health (depression, anxiety, well-being), and generalization effects of the intervention (strategy use in everyday life, difficulties in complex activities of daily living, memory complaints). Testing was administered before training and immediately, 3 months, and 6 months after training. RESULTS: Participants in the cognitive training condition improved on the delayed composite memory score and on strategy use in everyday life. Improvement was maintained at the 3- and 6-month follow-up assessments. Participants in the psychosocial and no-contact conditions did not show any significant improvement. CONCLUSION: Cognitive training improves the memory of persons with amnestic MCI. The effect persists over a 6-month period, and learned strategies are used in everyday life. Cognitive training is a valid way to promote cognition in MCI.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".