MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980625864 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.1235

P2‐013: THE EFFECTS OF A ‘COGNITION PROTECTING TAI CHI’ (CPT) EXERCISE PROGRAM ON COGNITION, MOODS, BEHAVIOURAL AND PSYCHIATRIC SYMPTOMS, AND ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING IN OLDER PEOPLE WITH MILD DEMENTIA

2019· article· en· W2980625864 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jihui Lyu, Nayan Huang, Lian Wei, Xiangjiang Rong

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionDementiaPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A set of Tai Chi program named ‘Cognition Protecting Tai Chi’ (CPT) has been specially designed for older people with cognitive impairments by our research team. The aim of this study is to assess the effects of a bespoke ‘Cognition Protecting Tai Chi’ (CPT) program on older patients with mild dementia. Eighty older patients with mild dementia participated the study and were randomly allocated to the intervention group and the control group. The intervention group practiced the CPT three times a week for 20 min each time under the guidance of professional therapists for 10 months, while the control group continued receiving routine treatments. All participants underwent a series of tests on cognition, depressive moods, behavioural and psychiatric symptoms, and activities of daily living, including the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the WHO-University of California Los Angeles-Auditory Verbal Learning test (WHO-UCLA-AVLT), Trail Making Test (TMT), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Neuropsychological Inventory (NPI) and Barthel Index (BI), at baseline, 5 and 10 months. Results show the CPT significantly improved some of the cognitive measures, alleviated depressive moods, behavioral and psychological. 74 participants (IG: n=36, CG: n=38) completed the 10-month study. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant group × time interaction (F=5.714, P=0.005) in the MoCA score, both a significant main effect of time (F=5.457, P=0.01) and a significant group × time interaction (F=4.986, P=0.021) in the NPI score, a significant main effect of time (F=4.506, P=0.014) and a significant group × time interaction in the GDS score. No falls or severe adverse events were reported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→