Exercise and Horticultural Programs for Older Adults with Depressive Symptoms and Memory Problems: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depressive symptoms and memory problems are risk factors for dementia. Exercise can reduce these in older people, and horticultural activity can benefit people with dementia. This study assessed the efficacy of exercise and horticultural interventions for community-dwelling older adults with depressive symptoms and mild memory decline. In this randomized controlled trial, older adults (n = 89) were assigned to exercise, horticultural, or control groups. Exercise and horticultural programs included 20 weekly 90-min sessions. The control group attended two 90-min classes. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, and then 6- and 12-months post-intervention. Primary outcome measures were the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15) and Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. Walking speed, two-minute walking test scores, social network, life space, and subjective daily physical activity were secondary outcome measures. Compared with the control group, the exercise group obtained higher immediate and delayed recall logical memory scores, and the increase in immediate recall scores remained 12-months post-intervention. Two-minute walking performance improved in the exercise group, but not after 12 months. GDS-15 scores showed no significant improvements. The horticultural and control groups showed no differences. Exercise may improve memory, while horticultural activity may not. The effects of exercise and horticultural interventions on depressive symptoms remain unclear.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".