Effects of Resistance Exercise with Instability on Neurocognitive Functions (REI STUDY): Study Protocol for a Proof-of-Concept Clinical Trial in Older Adults with Subjective Cognitive Complaints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Resistance exercise (RE) is a widely accepted strategy to counteract the effects of aging and chronic diseases on health-related outcomes. Studies have been suggested that RE improves brain and cognitive health. RE with unstable devices (REI) is a neuromotor complexity strategy with the potential to improve strength, power, and balance in onder adults, however, their effects on neurocognitive function in individuals at risk of cognitive decline are poorly understood. Thus, we describe the REI study protocol, a randomized clinical trial design to assess the effects of 12-weeks of REI and RE on neurocognitive functions in older adults with subjective cognitive complaints. Methods: The sample will consist of individuals (aged 65 or older) with subjective cognitive complaints, who will be randomized in one of three experimental groups: control, RE or REI. Participants of the RE group will receive 12-weeks of progressive resistance training (seven exercises structured into 3 sets of 10-15 repetitions maximum, three times per week). Participants of the REI group will receive the same RE protocol performed on unstable devices that promote progressive instability. The control group received a health education program. The primary outcome is a composite score of neurocognitive functions. Secondary outcomes include each separately neurocognitive domain, functional performance, balance, falls-related parameters, cardiovascular and mood variables. The study results will provide information to design a future and larger preventive trial on populations at risk of cognitive decline and dementia, which is imperative in public health terms. Trial registration: Brazilian registry of clinical trials number RBR-4kqs22.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.006 |
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".