Cognitive ability and motor performances in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aim. Aging entails a wide range of cognitive processes that are not independent of one another. It leads to changes in physical-motor characteristics and sometimes to disability. The aim of this study was to examine the association between multiple cognitive performances in elderly subjects and their physical-motor abilities. Method. The study included 98 elderly participants (60+) (16 males and 82 females). Cognitive abilities were assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)/Serbian version, and physical measures were assessed by the Senior Fitness Test with its five subtests, supplemented by the Walking Speed Test. Results. Several MoCA items demonstrated relatively low variability, i.e., they proved to be too easy for most of the participants. The participants exhibited the lowest performance on the memory relating to other domains, followed by executive functions, visuospatial skills, attention, concentration, and working memory domains, with the highest performance on temporal and spatial orientation relating to other domains. Executive functions and language correlated most significantly with physical strength. Agility and dynamic balance, lower- and upper-body strength, and aerobic endurance correlated moderately and positively. Conclusion. This study underlines the positive correlation between physical fitness and cognitive level in the elderly and emphasizes the importance of physical fitness for cognitive functions, especially those of executive type in elderly subjects. Clinicians should consider the association between cognitive function and physical-motor performances when dealing with functioning improvement in the elderly. The importance of designing the most efficient exercise pro-grams to achieve maximal somatic and cognitive effects is emphasized.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".