MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047368547 · doi:10.3390/jfmk5030059

The Importance of Exercise in Alzheimer’s Disease and the Minds in Motion® Program: An Editorial

2020· article· en· W3047368547 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jessica Watson, Nathan O’Keeffe, Sarah West

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersOntario Trillium FoundationAlzheimer Society
KeywordsDementiaQuality of life (healthcare)DiseasePsychological interventionGerontologyCognitionPsychologyInclusion (mineral)Function (biology)Quality (philosophy)MedicineNeurosciencePsychiatryPsychotherapistSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and other dementias are prevalent neurodegenerative diseases characterized by decreased cognition, physical function, and quality of life. Currently, millions of people are living with AD and other dementias. With no cure, research has examined the use of non-pharmacological treatment options including exercise. Many high-quality studies demonstrate that physical activity slows the progression of AD’s many outcomes, and is beneficial to overall quality of life in those living with AD. However, creating exercise interventions at the community level that individuals will adhere to is often a challenge. The Alzheimer’s Society of Canada developed a unique program that combines physical activity with cognitive stimulation in a social atmosphere: The Minds in Motion® program. Minds in Motion® addresses many of the barriers often linked to poor physical activity participation in chronic diseases (such as inclusion of the care partner), to ensure the best program uptake. The Minds in Motion® program has anecdotally been successful in helping to increase physical function and social skills in those living with dementia. However, it is important to connect community-driven programs with the academic research community, to create an opportunity for high quality evaluation metrics that can be disseminated at multiple levels: to research audiences, clinical audiences, and to those in the community. With ongoing collaborations between research and community programs, there is a greater opportunity to understand the positive impact of a program, which ultimately increases the chance of funding for the program. In this editorial, we highlight that community-integrated research is an important priority for future collaborations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Functional Morphology and KinesiologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207