The impact of aerobic combined strength and balance exercise on cognitive function in patients with cognitive impairment no dementia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effects of aerobic combined strength and balance exercise on cognitive function and satisfaction in patients with cognitive impairment no dementia. Methods Four hundred and twenty patients with cognitive impairment no dementia were divided into control group (200 cases) and experimental group (220 cases) by random digits table method. The control group received general health education and rehabilitation training. The experimental group received aerobic combined strength and balance exercise. The patients were assessed with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to evaluate their cognition before training, as well as after training. And the patients' satisfaction with the questionnaire was evaluated. Results The total scores of MoCA, scores of name, attention, language, memory and directionafter training were (23.47±2.38), (2.77±0.42), (5.09±0.86), (2.50±0.65), (3.42±0.68), (5.03±0.10) points in the experimental group, and (21.20±2.55), (2.31±0.76), (4.71±1.10), (2.35±0.70), (2.23±0.81), (4.48±0.96) points in the control group, and there were significant differences,P 0.05. The scores of satisfaction in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group: (49.33±1.57) points vs. (48.20±2.14) points,P<0.01. Conclusion The application of aerobic combined strength and balance exercise could improve the cognitive function and patients' satisfaction. Key words: Stroke; Cognitive impairment with no dementia; Aerobic exercise; Strength exercise; Cognitive function
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it