Effects of gaze stability exercises on cognitive function, dynamic postural ability, balance confidence, and subjective health status in old people with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether gaze stability exercises would result in improvements of cognitive function, balance ability and subjective health status in old people with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Old people with MCI (n=9) and healthy old people (n=9) performed gaze stability exercises for 4 weeks. Pre and post Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for cognitive function, Timed Up and Go test for dynamic postural ability, Activities-Specific Balance Confidence for balance confidence and subjective health status were measured in both groups. After participating in gaze stability exercises, all outcome measures were significantly improved in MCI group and normal group also improved significantly in all outcome measures with the exception of balance confidence. In addition, there were significant differences in cognitive function and balance confidence between the two groups, and more improvements in MCI group. These results provide evidence that gaze stability exercises is beneficial to improve cognitive function as well as balance ability which affected on quality of life in old people with and without 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".