Physiotherapy Versus Physiotherapy Plus Cognitive Training on Cognition and Quality of Life in Parkinson Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to verify the effectiveness of physiotherapy associated with cognitive training to improve cognition and quality of life in individuals with Parkinson disease. DESIGN: This is a randomized clinical trial involving 58 individuals with mild to moderate Parkinson disease, randomly distributed into two groups: motor group and cognitive-motor group. Both groups were assessed for cognition and quality of life at the beginning of the study, at the end of the intervention protocols, and 3 mos after the end of the intervention. The following instruments were used to assess cognition and quality of life: Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Verbal fluency test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Cognitive and perceptual assessment by pictures, Trail Making Test, Clock Drawing Executive Test, and Parkinson Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire. The motor group engaged in motor physiotherapy, whereas the cognitive-motor group underwent combined motor physiotherapy with cognitive training. RESULTS: The intragroup analysis revealed that both groups presented improved cognition (memory and visuospatial function domains) and quality of life after execution of the protocols, but without statistically significant intergroup differences. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the intervention moments, the two treatment approaches used were effective for the outcomes: memory, visuospatial function, and quality of life in both groups.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".