P1‐606: EFFECTS OF TWELVE WEEKS OF MULTICOMPONENT AND AGILITY EXERCISES INTO THE COGNITIVE ABILITIES IN ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normal aging is followed, mostly, by decline in cognitive abilities which may predispose several neurodegenerative disorders including Alzheimer disease. Conversely, regular exercise has been associated with greater cognitive performance in elderly people, capable of reverting impairment caused by a sedentary lifestyle. We investigated the effects of twelve-week multicomponent and agility exercises in elderly individuals. 37 elderly subjects between 50 and 70 years old, were randomly assigned to three groups: multicomponent, agility or control group. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to evaluate cognitive performance and the Modified Baecke Questionnaire for the Elderly (QBMI) was used to assess the level of physical activity. To evaluate the agility, we used the Timed Up and Go (TUG) and Timed Up and Go dual task (TUGd). The software SPSS 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, United States) was used for the statistical analysis. Data distribution was verified with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test, then, the data linearity was verified for correlation. The Spearman's correlation test was used to verify the correlation between the tests of movement quality, cognition and level of physical activity. In a multiple linear regression model, we considered the variables that presented significant statistical results in the correlation test p < 0.20. We considered the stepwise forward input method to calculate the adjusted estimate (β), with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). No significant difference was observed in any of the groups for any of tests employed. In TUGd, however, we did observe a trend towards improvement, without statistical differences, for the multicomponent group and in TUG for both multicomponent and agility groups. In MoCA we also observed a trend towards improvement, without statistical difference, in the agility group. Although no statistical difference was found, there was a trend towards improvement in individuals that performed exercises, demonstrating the beneficial impact of this strategy on mental health and physical functionality for the aging population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".