MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105018375 · doi:10.1177/1535759720973681

Getting Physical: A Specific Boost for Cognition in Epilepsy?

2020· letter· en· W3105018375 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William Barr

Bibliographic record

VenueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currents · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyCognitionNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceMedicinePsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effect of Combined Physical Training on Cognitive Function in People With Epilepsy: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial Feter N, Alt R, Häfele CA, et al. Epilepsia . 2020;61(8):1649-1658. doi: 10.1111/epi.16588 . PMID: 32602966. Objective: To examine the effect of 12-week exercise program on cognitive function in people with epilepsy. Methods: Twenty-one physically inactive patients were randomized into 2 groups: the exercise group (EG) or the control group. Exercise group performed 12 weeks of combined physical training. Control group was advised to maintain usual daily activities. Exercise group received a structured, individually supervised exercise program with two 60-minute sessions per week. Each session included warmup (5 minutes), aerobic (15-20 minutes at 14-17 on Borg scale), strength (2-3 sets, 10-15 repetitions), and 5-minute active stretches. Sociodemographic characteristics, clinical information, memory (Digit Span Test [DST]), executive function (Trail Making Test [TMT] A and B), Stroop Color and Word Test, a verbal fluency task, global cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA]), anthropometric measurements (weight, height, and hip and waist circumferences), cardiorespiratory fitness (maximal oxygen consumption [ V . o 2 max]), and strength (dynamometer) were measured at baseline and after the 12-week intervention. Results: Exercise decreased time spent on TMT-A from baseline to postintervention (difference = −7.9 seconds, 95% CI = −14.5 to −1.3, P = .023). Exercise group improved total number of words on the verbal fluency task after intervention (difference = 8.1 words, 95% CI = 3.0-13.2, P = .002). Exercise group also improved the score on MoCA at 1.7 (95% CI = 0.1-3.3, P = .043) points. We observed a 22.4% (95% CI = 13.1-31.6, P = .021) improvement in executive function in EG. No effect of group, time, or group × time was observed on any other cognitive test. Changes in V ˙ o 2 max were negatively associated with changes in performance on DST (r = −0.445, P = .049) and overall memory score (r = −0.544, P = .042). Significance: This randomized controlled trial provided the first evidence that combined physical training improves executive function in adults with epilepsy, showing main improvements in attention and language tasks. Physical exercise should be encouraged for people with epilepsy to reduce the burden on cognitive function associated with this disease.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpiliepsy currents/Epilepsy currentsSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207