The impact of aerobic exercise combined and computer cognitive training on cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment
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 investigate the changes of cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment after aerobic exercise combined and computer cognitive training. Methods Four hundred and twenty patients were divided into two groups by random digits table method. The control group(200 cases) received general health education and rehabilitation training. The intervention group(220 cases) received aerobic exercise combined and computer cognitive training. The patients were assessed with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to evaluate their cognition before training, as well as after training. Results After intervention, the scores of the MoCA total score, naming, attention, language, memory, and orientation in the intervention group were 24.12 ± 2.18, 2.77 ± 0.42, 5.05 ± 0.88, 2.75 ± 0.56, 3.18 ± 0.91, 4.68 ± 0.87, the control group were 21.13 ± 2.13, 2.45 ± 0.56, 4.71 ± 1.10, 2.35 ± 0.69, 2.43 ± 0.81, 4.48 ± 0.96. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups (t=-11.278~-0.543, P 0.05). Conclusions The application of aerobic exercise combined and computer cognitive training could improve the cognitive function. Key words: Mild cognitive impairment; Aerobic exercise; Cognitive function; Computerized cognitive training
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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