Telehealth Rehabilitation for Cognitive Impairment: Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial
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
BACKGROUND: Nonpharmacological interventions are needed to support the function of older adults struggling with subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia due to Alzheimer disease (AD). Telerehabilitation aims to provide rehabilitation at a distance, but cognitive rehabilitation by videoconferencing has not been explored. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare goal-oriented cognitive rehabilitation delivered in-person with videoconferencing to determine whether telehealth cognitive rehabilitation appears feasible. METHODS: Random assignment to in-person or telehealth videoconferencing cognitive rehabilitation with a combined between-subjects, multiple baseline single-case experimental design, cognitive rehabilitation was delivered by a therapist to 6 participants with SCI (n=4), MCI (n=1), or dementia due to AD (n=1). RESULTS: Two of the 6 participants randomly assigned to the telehealth condition withdrew before beginning the intervention. For those who participated in the intervention, 6 out of 6 goals measured with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure improved for those in the in-person group, and 7 out of 9 goals improved for those in the telehealth group. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of cognitive rehabilitation by telehealth appeared feasible but required modifications such as greater reliance on caregivers and clients for manipulating materials.
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 | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it