Effects of electroacupuncture combined with computer-based cognitive rehabilitation on mild cognitive impairment: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is defined as an intermediate stage between normal aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD), and early and easily available interventions to delay the progress of MCI to AD are necessary. Feasible complementary and alternative therapies such as electroacupuncture (EA), exercise, and cognitive training have shown some beneficial effects on MCI and AD. Here we report the protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of EA combined with computer-based cognitive rehabilitation (EA-CCR) for the treatment of MCI. METHODS: The study will be a prospective, outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm, single-center (DongShin University Gwangju Korean Medicine Hospital, Republic of Korea), pilot randomized controlled clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants with MCI will be randomized to a computer-based cognitive rehabilitation (CCR) or an EA-CCR group (n = 18 each). The CCR group will receive RehaCom cognitive rehabilitation once (30 min) a day, 3 days per week (excluding Saturday and Sunday) for 8 weeks. The EA-CCR group will receive EA at Baihui (GV20), Sishencong (EX-HN1), Fengchi (GB20), and Shenting (GV24) in addition to RehaCom cognitive rehabilitation once (EA:30 min, CCR:30 min) a day, 3 days per week (excluding Saturday and Sunday) for 8 weeks. The primary outcome will be an improvement in cognitive function assessed using the Korean version of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale. Scores for the Korean version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, Korean Activities of Daily Living scale, Korean Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale, and European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level Scale will be recorded as secondary outcome measures. All scores will be recorded at baseline (before intervention), 8 weeks after the first intervention (i.e., at the end of the intervention), and 12 weeks after completion of the intervention. DISCUSSION: The study is expected to provide preliminary evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and usefulness of EA-CCR for the treatment of MCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Korea Clinical Information Service, cris.nih.go.kr, KCT0003415 . Registered on 4 January 2019. Retrospectively registered, http://cris.nih.go.kr .
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.008 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".