Cognitive changes following multiple-modality exercise and mind-motor training in older adults with subjective cognitive complaints: The M4 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated the effects of multiple-modality exercise with additional mind-motor training on cognition in community-dwelling older adults with subjective cognitive complaints. METHODS: Participants (n = 127, mean age 67.5 [7.3] years, 71% women) were randomized to receive 45 minutes of multiple-modality exercise with additional 15 minutes of either mind-motor training (M4, n = 63) or control (balance, range of motion and breathing exercises [M2, n = 64]). In total, both groups exercised 60 minutes/day, 3 days/week, for 24 weeks. Standardized global cognitive functioning (GCF), concentration, reasoning, planning, and memory were assessed at 24 weeks and after a 28-week no-contact follow-up. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the study primary outcomes. The M4 group, however, showed trends for greater improvements in GCF and memory (both, P = .07) compared to the M2 group at 24 weeks. Significant differences between group in GCF (P = .03) and memory (P = .02) were observed after the 28-week no-contact follow-up favouring the M4 group. DISCUSSION: Additional mind-motor training did not impart immediate greater benefits to cognition among the study participants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".