The effectiveness of the reminiscence-based program versus cognitive stimulation to prevent progression of cognitive frailty in older adults from day centers: A quasi-experimental
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The prevention and management of physical and cognitive frailty are considered as priority goals in geriatric healthcare. Research on frailty has shown that physical exercise and nutritional supplementation are most effective for preventing progress of physical frailty. Regarding interventions for cognitive frailty, there is a lack of conclusive evidence. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a reminiscence-based program (RBP) versus cognitive stimulation (CS) on cognitive frailty in older adults from day centers. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted in seven day centers in the central region of Portugal. Of 106 subjects (aged ≥ 65) screened for inclusion criteria (clinical stability, capacity to participate actively in the intervention program and absence of severe cognitive decline), 56 were considered as eligible for the study, being allocated to RBP or CS. Both programs were conducted in groups and had duration of seven weeks. Cognitive frailty measures included the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Trail Making Test – form A (TMT-A). Results: RBP was concluded by 28 participants (average age 79.33±7.35, average education 3.29±1.86) and CS by 16 participants (average age 84.63±7.80, average education 4.31±2.50). RBP improved the MoCA score. CS had a positive impact on TMT-A. Between-group differences on the TFI post-intervention score were also observed. Conclusion: Both RBP and CS improved cognition in older adults attending day centers. RBP was also shown to be beneficial for global frailty. Further investigation is necessary to confirm effectiveness of these two interventions to postpone evolution of cognitive frailty.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".