Feasibility of a 6-month pilot randomised controlled trial of resistance training on cognition and brain health in Canadian older adults at-risk for diabetes: study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with cognitive deficits and increased risk of dementia, and thus individuals at high risk for T2D (ie, those who are overweight or prediabetic) are also at greater risk for cognitive decline. Aerobic exercise is known to preserve and improve cognitive function, but the effects of resistance training (RT) are much less known in older adults. Moreover, research on the effects of RT on cognition and brain health (structure and function) in older adults at-risk for diabetes is limited. To address this question, a 6-month RT intervention is needed. Importantly, before conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT), we are conducting a feasibility pilot study to assess potential recruitment rates, adherence and retention in this specific population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a 6-month, thrice-weekly RT RCT. Participants (aged 60-80; sedentary; fasting plasma glucose of 6.1-7.0 mmol/L or body mass index ≥25) are randomised into one of two groups: (1) RT or (2) balance and tone (control). Based on other exercise trials using a similar population, we will consider our trial feasible if we have adherence and retention at 70%. Recruitment rate will be measured as time it takes to enrol 20 participants. To assess behavioural and MRI data, we will report descriptive statistics and estimation using a 95% CI. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our study has received ethics approval from the Health Sciences Research Ethics Board at Western University. As this is a small pilot study, data will only be made available to other researchers on request. Results from this study will be disseminated via academic publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03254381.
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 | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.005 |
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".