Multidimensional intervention in individuals with mild cognitive impairment: a pilot nonrandomized study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing need for non-pharmacological treatments that can enhance the cognitive function of individuals with mild cognitive impairment. We firstly performed multidimensional intervention based on the concept of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, and aimed to explore its short-term effect on the improvement of cognitive function in individuals with mild cognitive impairment. METHODS: Twenty-four individuals with mild cognitive impairment in this pilot study were recruited from the memory clinic and neurology ward in Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital from August 2018 to August 2019. According to participants' personal wishes, 13 and 11 participants were enrolled into an intervention group and a control group, respectively. Based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, we performed baseline assessments to all participants. According to the assessment results and the wishes and hobbies of the patients, then doctors, therapists, nurses, patients and their families together chose the appropriate multidimensional interventions to the intervention group in seven 1-hour sessions and health education to the both groups. After one week, all participants underwent reevaluation of cognitive function. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the two groups on the improvement of cognitive function. The intervention group (mean ± SD, 3.460±1.613) scored higher than the control group (1.360±0.924) on the change score of the total score in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (t =3.808, P<0.001, 95% CI: 0.955-3.240), though not on the change score of any cognitive domain score. Regression results showed that the change score of the total score was negatively correlated with the baseline score of Abstraction score (aR2 =0.583, β =-0.506, P=0.031) and the modified Barthel index score (β =-0.464, P=0.045) in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot study demonstrated that the short-term multidimensional intervention may produce cognitive benefits in individuals with mild cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".