Effects of 12‐week combined cognitive training and physical activity intervention on cognitive and psychosocial outcomes of Brazilian older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cognitive training and physical activity provide mental, social and physical stimulation that may reduce dementia risk. However, there is limited evidence on the benefits of interventions to increase cognitive engagement among healthy elderly. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of combined cognitive training and physical activity on cognitive function and psychosocial well‐being among healthy middle‐aged and older adults. Method 114 adults with age between 50 to 80 years, recruited by advertisements in the local media, were randomized into four intervention arms: 1) cognitive training + physical activity, 2) cognitive training only, 3) physical activity only, or 4) no‐intervention control group. The interventions had 12 weeks of duration with 90 minutes of cognitive training (groups 1 and 2), and 180 minutes of physical activity (groups 1 and 3) per week. Participants were assessed for cognitive performance (MoCA), social support, depressive and anxiety symptoms, at baseline and follow‐up. Data were analyzed through Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale, and Shape ‐ GAMLSS, controlling for age, sex and years of schooling. Result Most of the subjects were female, mean age of 64.5 years (SD=7.0), and average schooling of 12.1 years (SD=3.7). After 12 weeks we conclude the follow‐up with 88 participants. Following the intervention, MoCA increased in all groups (Coef=.98, 95%CI=.00;1.95, p<.01). There was no evidence of differences between the intervention groups for MoCA (1x2 p=.99, 1x3 p=.94, 1x4 p=.92, 2x3 p=.97, 2x4 p=.95, 3x4 p=.99). Subjects from group 1 and 2 increased the number of people to provide social support comparing to the control group (Coef=.27, 95%CI=.00;.54, p=.04/ Coef=.27, 95%CI=.00;.55, p=.03). There was no evidence of differences between the intervention groups for social support (1x2 p=.99, 1x3 p=.53, 1x4 p=.20, 2x3 p=.50, 2x4 p=.18, 3x4 p=.88). Depression and anxiety symptoms did not show effects or interactions (p=.73/ p=.68). There was no evidence of differences between the intervention groups for depression and anxiety (1x2 p=.99, 1x3 p=.94, 1x4 p=.92, 2x3 p=.97, 2x4 p=.95, 3x4 p=.99/ 1x2 p=.99, 1x3 p=.76, 1x4 p=.74, 2x3 p=.78, 2x4 p=.76, 3x4 p=.99). Conclusion Social support showed positive results for combined interventions and cognitive training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".