MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094744759 · doi:10.1017/s1041610220002537

400 - Effects of Computerized Cognitive Training with an Elderly Community Sample

2020· article· en· W3094744759 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mónica Pires, Ana Antunes, Cristiany Beatriz da Silva Gameiro, Carla Alexandra Silva Pombo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeriatric Depression ScaleMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionCognitive trainingDementiaPsychologyClinical psychologyExecutive functionsPsychological interventionGerontologyMedicinePsychiatryCognitive impairmentDepressive symptoms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community-focused programs that promote active and healthy aging can help preserve cognitive capacities, prevent or reverse cognitive deficits. Computer-based cognitive training (CCT) is a promising non-pharmacological, cost -effective and accessible intervention to face the effects of age-related cognitive decline. Previous studies proved CCT to have equal or better efficacy compared to traditional interventions. This comparative multifactorial study aims to test the efficacy of a CCT in a non-randomized community sample of 74 older adults: G1-CCT Experimental group (n=43) (Mean age M=72.21, SD=12.65) and G2- Paper-Pencil Control group (n=31; M=77.94, SD=10.51). Pensioners (97.3%), mostly women (83.8 %) with basic education (51.4%) and without dementia diagnosis, completed a cognitive training program of 17 or 34 group sessions (twice a week). G2 undertook a classic cognitive paper-pencil stimuli tasks. G1, performed, additionally, individual CCT with COGWEB® in a multimodal format (intensive training of attention, calculation, memory, gnosis, praxis, executive functions). Both groups completed Portuguese versions of Mini -Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA); Geriatric Depressive Scale (GDS); Mini Dependence Assessment (MDA); WHOOQL 5 and Social Support Satisfaction Scale (ESSS) before and after participating in the program. Both groups reported better post-test scores on basic cognitive functions (MMSE, MOCA), Depression symptoms (GDS-30), subjective well-being and quality of life (WHOOQL-5). G1 presented higher MOCA and lower GDS scores before and after CCT, although, group differences become less expressive when interaction effects are considered. Results are in line with findings from past studies, CCT supported by the new technologies, is as a relevant cost-effective therapeutic tool for health professionals working with older adults. Particularly for preventive purposes of neuro-cognitive disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational PsychogeriatricsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207