A controlled clinical effectiveness trial of multimodal cognitive rehabilitation on episodic memory functioning in older adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a multimodal cognitive intervention, the Cognitive Enrichment Program (CEP), on episodic memory in traumatic brain injured (TBI) older adults, as compared to an active control group that received usual care in the form of holistic rehabilitation. Methods The CEP’s Memory module consisted in memory strategies to promote encoding. Effectiveness was evaluated by psychometric tests (Face-name association, Word list recall, Text memory), while generalization was measured through self-reported questionnaires about daily memory functioning (Self-Evaluation Memory Questionnaire) and psychological well-being (Psychological General Well-Being Index). Measures were obtained before and after intervention, and six months later. Results Both groups showed improvement on most measures, but the experimental group showed greater statistically significant improvement. ANCOVA mixed model repeated measures analysis showed a strong group-by-time interaction for the Face-name association test, with a large effect size. A significant group-by-time interaction was obtained on three generalization self-report measures, including increased memorization of the content of Conversations , reduced Slips of attention , and increased memory of Political & social Events , with moderate to large effect sizes. Clinically significant improvements were found for Psychological well-being in the experimental group, where 50% of participants improved to the well-being category and remained stable six months later (9/17; 53%). Also, the number of experimental participants showing severe distress before CEP training (9) was reduced after intervention (5) and remained relatively stable at 6 months. Conclusions The CEP is a promising cognitive rehabilitation program that showed high satisfaction in participants and that can not only improve episodic memory in terms of psychometric scores, but also in daily life situations, as well as enhance psychological well-being in older individuals having sustained a TBI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".